I noticed that it is unusually common for people assigned male at birth who always behaved at least somewhat feminine to have a dislike for feminism.
Please explain this strange phenomenom, it is not very logical for trans women and feminine males to be very critical of feminism. Picture unrelated.
It infects things, it spreads, it destroys, it eats, it is inevitable within anything that makes the mistake of being relevant to the societal body, and it has no simple cure.
I understand that it sells itself well, but it doesn't have anybody's back. It is a psuedo religion that exists only to keep existing.
I did educate myself, and I have found that pretty much without fail feminism is a bad thing. That "educate yourself," thing is part of why I think feminism is terrible.
We both know damn well that there is information on both sides just a Google search away. If you wanted to inform you'd have sent links. You just want to be condescending and lazy.
Because many feminists have a way of painting all males as macho chauvinistic monsters. This rubs feminine boys the wrong way. Growing up I already fucking despised being male so the last thing I needed was assholes screaming about how I'm some brutish violent rapist in the making.
So like other posts already said, it's just extremely alienating to people that actually support a lot of the things the stand for.
you're asking this on 4chan...where people react to the word feminist like most people react to nigger. what are you expecting
if you're trans you owe it to yourself to read some judith butler at least
I'm trutrans, so I'm a feminist. The only "trans women" who would be offended by feminism are the ones who see themselves as fundamentally male, and therefore believe that feminism is out to get them. Really no different from betas.
>I'm trutrans, so I'm a feminist.
kek, fuck off.
>The only "trans women"
No true Scotsman.
>who would be offended by feminism are the ones who see themselves as fundamentally male,
Wrong, you don't need to see yourself as male to suffer from the harm feminism does to males.
>and therefore believe that feminism is out to get them.
Or who aren't blind to feminist misandry.
>Really no different from betas.
You're really nailing this acting like a cis woman.
ITKF, back when I was still questioning one of my worries was that I might just be trying to get away from negative male stereotypes.
I'm very much in favor of equal opportunities for both genders and reducing the social pressures for people to behave a certain way based on their gender and such, and I'm sure there are plenty of feminists who genuinely want the same thing, but I'm not terribly eager to call myself one while the crazy man-hater types are still running around. I feel similarly about MRAs, there's some good ones like Warren Farrel, but I don't want anything to do with the douchebags like Paul Elam.
I don't really have any "contempt for orgasm", or sex, or porn. I'm "sex-positive" or whatever you want to call it. But I just can't understand these trans women who whine about how feminism negatively impacts them because they still see themselves as feminine boys who were somehow maligned by feminism. Just seems dumb.
Its been years since I took an interest in the subject so I don't remember too many specific examples, just that he always seemed extremely antagonistic and angry. I think there was one video he did where he was ranting about how he wanted to smash some chick's head into a wall or something along those lines.
>But I just can't understand these trans women who whine about how feminism negatively impacts them
I'm >>7754601. My problem with trans women – from the standpoint of feminism – is how 99 in 100 perpetuate the worst patriarchal, most backwards, most oppressive stereotypes of "feminine". It's reflected in their aspirations.
For this reason, I don't consider any of them "tru"; they all are patriarchal caricatures of femininity. Even their HRTs are patriarchal caricatures of female hormonal system. No real woman has null testosterone; and no SEXY woman has LOW testosterone. And in any case no true woman is an average woman. It's a hysterical femininity.
But hey, we are talking about people who literally hate being sexy, per >>7752051. So they ARE feminists... of the WRONG kind.
>How is HRT patriarchal?
I explained it right in that post!
>How does that show they hate being sexy?
1. Why do we spell "sexy", not "seksy"?
2. Fuck you.
3. It takes some mental gymnastics to see it. These "trans women" are simply rebranded mediaeval eunuchs. Their trick is that they rebrand "asexual" as "cute" and "cute" as "feminine", so they can call themselves "trans women" to fit better in a post-religious world. That thread is consistent with this theory because it reports that the majority of trans women prefer being "feminine" to being sexy. One thing is that they can't be sexy when "feminine" means what it means. Second thing is that you can't be ACTUALLY feminine and not sexy... unless you're a feminazi. Third thing is much more simple: if you prefer A to B, you love A, not B. They fucking literally say in your face that they DON'T like being sexy as much as they like being feminine... and you're asking me how that thread shows that they hate being sexy. They may say they don't hate it but their true love is revealed as soon as there is any hint of conflict between "sexy" and "feminine": they will enthusiastically destroy anything that makes them sexy if doing this can give them "femininity". Do you call a mother who kills one child to please another "a loving mother"? Guess what? I'm tired of talking to you. Don't forget to answer why we don't spell "sexy" as "seksy".
>I explained it right in that post!
No, you just said it's different from "real" women, no reason for it being patriarchal.
>They fucking literally say in your face that they DON'T like being sexy as much as they like being feminine...
No, they just prefer passing because under feminism they suffer if they are read as male.
I have no problem with egalitarian feminism like the first wave and maybe even second wave feminist movements, but the current movement is such a cluster-fuck of contradictory and ill-conceived ideas it is like a swarm of gnats buzzing around constantly.
Its logical for anyone to be critical of feminism, because it is authoritarian and supports protecting the feelings of a few specific groups over everyones rights
They also wrongly accuse groups of being responsible for whats wrong in their life, make vast generalizations, are anti anyone who doesnt conform (like a right-leaning gay), and cause pain to people because of their insanity. Like doxxing people for making rapist/racist jokes online.
Id say they actively harm women too now.
>a fucking equal rights amendment
Feminism and equal rights? Something sounds off.
>After 1973, however, a highly organized opposition to the ERA emerged, suggesting that ratification would prove to be detrimental to women.
>Opponents argued that passing the amendment would do away with protective laws like sexual assault and alimony, eliminate the tendency for mothers to receive child custody in a divorce case, and immediately make the all-male military draft unconstitutional.
Yes, that is why it failed because it splintered the feminist movement. That is why I specifically mentioned the first wave and partially included the second wave. The fracturing of the feminist community over the ERA is why the current movement is such a hypocritical mess.
I'm not trying to say anything here, I'm ignoring politics altogether right around D now but, pure stats show that after a couple years on hrt that's got like, a 75% chance of flipping to maybe not identifying as a feminist, but going left of center when they never would've expected it
Uncomfortable truth just like ftms having really shit moods and being assholes when they first get on T most of the time
Suffragettes defended "Women and Children First" in emergencies.
Suffragettes defended the draft that saw countless men die.
Were they not first wave either?
The anti-ERA slogan was "STOP - Stop Taking Out Privileges"
Though they didn't spell it out before or since, that has been feminism's slogan from day 0 to today.
Suffragettes were looking for suffrage and suffrage alone, you retard. You know why movements are called movements? They are ongoing processes, not static moments in time. You think the feminist movement would have gotten women's suffrage successfully if they demanded every single fucking concession up front? Of course not.
>The anti-ERA slogan was
That was the anti-ERA camp. There were just as many feminists for the ERA; in fact is was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman in the 1920s. You know who Alice Paul was, right?
kys you uneducated faggot
Can you please be a little less triggered?
Interesting that you defend feminists supporting female privilege and anti-male sexism with the justification that they wouldn't have extended female privilege so successfully had they done so.
This has been the pattern of feminism from the start to today.
That was not my claim. I said I liked the egalitarian feminism like the first and maybe second waves. These movements were overtly egalitarian movements. Then you sperged out, because they didn't strive to do more than they did, which is an unreasonable position and is moving the goalposts of the original claim.
Egalitarianism isn't a black or white term. Just because they didn't do x while they were fighting for y doesn't render y null. Step outside your bedroom for a fraction of a second and look at the real world.
>You haven't said how HRT is patriarchal.
>No real woman has null testosterone; and no SEXY woman has LOW testosterone. And in any case no true woman is an average woman.
If you can't see any degradation of femininity in turning testosterone into an exclusive male privilege, you're obviously patriarchal yourself.
Here, I'll repost with emphasis in case that helps you follow English sentences:
Suffragettes DEFENDED "Women and Children First" in emergencies.
Suffragettes DEFENDED the draft that saw countless men die.
Do you see any "because they didn't do x while they were fighting for y" there? FEMINISM'S PURPOSE IS ANTI-MALE.
>Step outside your bedroom for a fraction of a second and look at the real world.
You forgot to call me a virgin and tell me women find me creepy.
You're delusional. They were suffragettes. They weren't fucking social justice warriors, asshole. They were after suffrage. Plus, men upheld both the draft and "women and child first" policies. How is that any different? Or are males also anti-male?
Besides, the ERA sought to do away with that, and was written and defended by core suffragettes after their voting rights had been secured.
It's because as trans women we've seen life from both sides. It's not about feeling personally attacked, (aside from the TERF ideologies of course) it's about seeing the double standard for what it is.
What's triggered you so bad? You thought feminists used to believe in equality, you were wrong, what's the big deal?
I mean unless you don't believe in equality yourself and the whole thing about feminism being good once was just a deliberate lie so you could pretend modern day sexist feminists are Not True Feminists?
>Or are males also anti-male?
There were Jewish Nazis, why are male feminists such a far-fetched idea?
I'd like to see some sources for those claims. I know there were some early feminists that went around shaming men who avoided going to war during WWI. But that wasn't something feminists just randomly decided to do on their own, it was a project organized by the military leadership to help recruit, and women were the only ones suitable for the job, both because men were more likely to care about how women felt about them, and because having a bunch of guys stay home and tell other guys to go off to fight would be hypocritical.
Also that was a very early formative stage of feminism, at that point they were really focused just on getting the right to vote, it hadn't become a whole broad philosophy later on, so there wasn't even a "feminist position" on things like the draft at that point.
>There were Jewish Nazis, why are male feminists such a far-fetched idea?
Male feminists definitely do exist, but the policies that hurt men (like the draft, and "women and children first") were created by men BEFORE FEMINISM WAS EVEN A THING, and some of these men were even opposed to female suffrage and feminism in general. So the idea that all these men were secretly feminists doesn't hold any water.
I think you're mistaking 'disliking feminism' or 'disliking women' or something. Just about all of my friends laugh at SJW shit and none of them are even internet people. Modern feminism is just an inherently dislikable thing, along with starving African kids or sluts getting beheaded in the Middle East.
Not that you're any kind of normal if you let that kind of hate actually effect your real world opinions, mind.
It's stupid internet shit that hardly even exists outside of American (and some European) cities
>HRT is muh patriarchy
Oh my, is this a troll or do TERFs actually believe this shit?
I was saying I don't understand trans women who whine about feminism, not that I can't understand feminists. But if you're the kind of feminist they've been exposed to, I can kind of understand. You do realize that there are many trans women who don't buy into that hyperfeminine crap, and many cis women who do, right? Are Staceys fake women too now?
You sure like to call people delusional. See I have suffered from delusions, and know what was a sign it was getting bad? I thought I knew everything, shouted at people, and got upset way too easily. Also I thought everyone else was crazy. So... yeah. Suffragettes did great things but were indeed crazy cunts.
True story, my family is pretty sure we were Jewish Nazi on my mother's side.
I think that it has pretty real world complications. The small group of people it effects tend to be upper middle class to rich, bored af, unemployed, and over confident. As such they fuck things up.
>You do realize that there are many trans women who don't buy into that
Like 1 in 100? Even if there had ever been one in /lgbt/, knowing /lgbt/, she sure was banned for truthfully saying that she enjoys her dick.
Well, certainly YOU do if lolicon, traps and Cara Delevigne are your idea of "hyperfeminine". Because that's what women without testosterone are. I call it "unfeminine".
>and many cis women who do, right?
>Are Staceys fake women too now?
"Failed" is a better word for them.
>The only feminine thing about him are his chromosomes.
i've heard butler express a few of her opinions from an interview of her in the 90's i think.
like about how "gender is performed".
sort of an attempt to turn the classical idea of womanhood & manhood on its head, also to point out hypocrisy among feminists who demonized potential allies, including feminine & gay men & trannies.
generally, we shouldn't try to hurt anyone or turn them away on the basis of them being male or female, nor on the basis of how they identify w/ or "perform" their gender.
i think what feminism meant to her is a means to liberate sexuality, & i applaud that.
now for my criticism:
i think this is one of the origins of the belief that gender is just a thing that's made up, & when taken to its logical conclusion, it kind of destroys the fundamental principles on which being transgender is built, yet paradoxically we see feminist idiots act out in ways that would suggest they don't believe in the concept of gender yet still believe that they were forced to live as the wrong gender.
i like the idea that i don't have to be punished for doing & being what comes most naturally to me, but when taken too far it becomes a tenet that defies fact & logic, which is unpalatable to me, even if it is convenient to the way i choose to live my own life.
judith butler is actually a decently competent philosopher, but it would benefit everyone, especially radical & 3rd-wave feminists, not to take any of their own ideas too seriously.
that's my take on judith butler
>No real woman has null testosterone
I'm post op for 6 years now. My body still produces testosterone, in a much smaller scale than before, but it still does. Everyone's body does, even people taking blockers will have testosterone in their body.
I don't understand you TERFs. We give up on ALL our privilege as men yet we're still oppressing you somehow?
What kind of woman turns a sister down? To me you're as bad as the men.
feminism "became" a joke when people on the internet pointed out the most ignorant, stupidest shit people have done in the name of feminism.
now all issues that are important for women are shut down because people treat feminism as a joke.
trans women and fem men have varied opinions of feminism mainly because no one can decide what feminism is anymore.
this entire board believes western stereotypes to be the pinnacle of human truth when it's just bs.
all of 4chan seems to not care for sexism or racism or transphobia because its a joke.
they mostly just want sex and to be left alone.
i'll just let this calvin hobbes picture explain it.
1. Good summary.
2. You need to add: destruction of valid feminism using strawman feminism is one of /pol/'s great stories of success. It's as if "radical" feminists are a false-flag op by fascists. The whole modern "liberalism" feels like a false-flag op by fascists.
You know, sometimes it's hard to believe that highly educated people can be so stupid with an honest intent.
In any case (whether it's a case of false flag or inherent stupidity), the usefulness of present-day liberalism for furthering fascist causes points to the intellectual and moral weakness of the present-day liberals themselves.
In other words, it's not the fascists but the "liberals" themselves who appear to be the greatest threat to liberty.
I still find it hard to call such people "liberals" at all. It's as if the political opposition in 2017 were comprised of just fascists and "fascists in liberal clothes" – authoritarian bigots poorly indoctrinated into liberalism, lacking innate liberal instinct.
That's the main argument of trans women.
Here, witness your stupidity.
>According to the NIH, the normal range of testosterone is 30–95 ng/dL for women.
And that's just female normies... not the finest representations of their gender.
And I lose capacity for erection and meaningful orgasm even at a much higher testosterone level than both (lower male range 350 ng/dL). So anything lower than 400 makes you (a man or a woman) a sexual cripple.
Are you fucking special? There have been basket cases in feminism since well before /pol/ was a dream of a dream of a dream. Basket cases just won when women stopped having things to complain about in the first world.
>It's as if "radical" feminists are a false-flag op by fascists.
That's actually exactly the case a lot of the time, at least online. There's a lot of people just on /pol/ who organize false-flag attempts as well as smaller scale stuff like making fake social media accounts that act like raving strawmen. There are definitely some genuine crazy extremists out there, but they're not nearly as common as the internet's obsession with Le SJW Boogeyman would lead you to believe- the vast majority of liberals I've known both online and off take those people about as seriously as goths or juggalos, regarding them as just some silly subculture to giggle at.
>bell hooks(because capitalization is sexist?)
>Milo(SJW not Y)
All real. Even if some soundbites are fake, these people aren't. I can list this many bat shit feminists off the top of my head. How many rational ones can you name without Google?
Quick adendum I just realized, while you could definitely put Gazi under SJW because he has helped contribute to that stupid BS, he is not a feminist according to himself. So I do apologize for that.
I never said that SJWs didn't exist, just that there are some groups who have a history of false-flagging in order to make them seem like a much bigger issue than they actually are, as well as trying to give the impression that they speak for liberals in general which is most definitely not the case. From the way some people on the internet talk about them, you'd think there were SJWs hiding behind every bush just waiting to jump out at you, its ridiculous.
>I don't understand you TERFs. We give up on ALL our privilege as men yet we're still oppressing you somehow?
The amount of wrong that one line of text can pack will never fail to amaze me. It will take me a disproportionately long post to fix it.
1. It would be easier to interpret your act as feministic if you deprived yourself of male privilege WHILE STAYING MALE. But even that would be merely feminazi... not feministic.
2. Masochistic gratification doesn't count. The relation between you and the gender equality movement is like the relation between a white man who enjoys living as a slave and the black liberation movement. His act could please black supremacist (like your act could please feminazis)... but what benefit is it to black slaves and to white people who want a free world? He's doing no favour to neither blacks nor whites. Likewise you're doing a favour neither to men nor to women. You literally chose the worst of two worlds. Your antidote to inequality is the communistic "equality in poverty". Your influence is a gender equivalent of the tall poppy syndrome.
3. If you really did it to yourself, that would be fine. But no, people like you make OTHER people like you. You are a castration cult in trans clothes. You advertise lies and you drag others into self-harm (proof in the picture). You repress trans people who don't join you. So you are the TERF one really. You are the one who excludes AGPs, shemales and high-test women. You are the one aligned with feminazis. You are trans-exclusionary (TERF) – I'm feminazi-exclusionary (RFET). More: >>7754601
>What kind of woman turns a sister down? To me you're as bad as the men.
4. You'd have to be a WOMAN first. I don't call a WOMAN somebody with testosterone levels of a 11 year old (or even those of a normal white woman)... regardless of her birth gender.
5. I only turn down "trutrans", TERFs and feminazis. You are as bad as patriarchy.
SJW's aren't hiding behind every bush and that is the issue. They are in places of learning. I don't care about the things that are usually false flags. I care about the figure heads who we know are legit.
Because feminism is not what it used to be. Modern "third wave" feminism is nothing more than a psychopathic she-woman man-haters club.
Women in the United States, Europe and basically the rest of the western civilized world have total equality under the law. The current things 'feminists' advocate is literally non-issue bullshit like
>sexual objectification of women in video games/movies/TV
>bodi-posi fat love/anti-fat shaming
>Stop looking at me! Eye rape!
>Empowerment means going topless and writing "proud slut" across your chest
>I'm oppressed but can never explain how!
>Stop telling women to defend themselves! Tell rapists to stop raping us because criminals always obey the law when reminded
The only valid issue left is abortion and this is an extremely complex subject. But third wave feminists think abortions should be a hobby and their icons like Lena Dunham think killing babies for lulz is funny.
>We give up on ALL our privilege yet we're still oppressing you somehow?
Well, hypocrite. You've just answered yourself.
>you have a mental illness
Calling someone "mentally ill" is a thinly veiled authoritarian threat. Thank God you aren't mod or CIA because I wouldn't last very long. Castrated trannies confirmed for §3.
>3. (...) You repress trans people who don't join you.
>omg how can lgbt not support feminism?! we're allies! fuck you, trump!
>these evil fucking harpies are trying to vaginal jew me! fuck you you fucking succubus, you can't enslave me, I'm gay! how can lgbt ppl be feminists?!
notice: both are cringeworthy af and neither are cute, so stay cute and don't polarize~~~~~<3
Trans women are supposed to have low testosterone compared to MALE standards. Otherwise HRT is utterly pointless.
Femininity is a useless concept so long as it continues to be defined by men.
>if you deprived yourself of male privilege WHILE STAYING MALE.
That's not even an option though, you don't choose to have privilege, the best you can do is acknowledge of it, but if you live as a male you're given male privilege whether you want it or not. You could be some kind of flagellant who hurts or disadvantages yourself to "counteract" male privilege, but that really doesn't make sense as anything but a symbolic gesture.
> you drag others into self-harm (proof in the picture)
I really don't see how that's "self-harm", it's just body modification. There's no issue with it as long as you pay for it yourself, and are aware of the consequences.
>I don't call a WOMAN somebody with testosterone levels of a 11 year old (or even those of a normal white woman)... regardless of her birth gender.
Uh, what? A normal cis white woman isn't a woman by your standards?
>Modern "third wave" feminism is nothing more than a psychopathic she-woman man-haters club.
Funny, that's exactly what people said about first and second wave feminism.
>Women in the United States, Europe and basically the rest of the western civilized world have total equality under the law. The current things 'feminists' advocate is literally non-issue bullshit
So legal equality is where we must stop? Not saying legal equality isn't a good thing, but you seem to think that social norms should be held sacred and questioning them should be forbidden, even when they do harm women.
>>Stop telling women to defend themselves! Tell rapists to stop raping us because criminals always obey the law when reminded
What anti-feminists dismiss as "telling men not to rape" is actually encouraging people to gain a more complete understanding of what consent actually is. Most people, if asked, will say rape is wrong, the problem is they don't REALIZE what rape is. And no, obviously criminals won't stop committing crimes just because they're being "reminded", that's where punishment comes in.
It got women the right to vote and the right to be financially independent. If you think those are bad, you're not merely an anti-feminist, but also a misogynist.
Neither do you.
Most trannies/femboys (neither of which are actually men anyways) don't castrate themselves. If you don't want to be seen as a moron, try using the English language properly.
1. Non-op trannies and femboys aren't the ones hellbent on trying to ban me and lock me in mental asylum for speaking in favour of dick. It's the pre-op and post-op ones who are the most spiteful and oppressive ones.
2. The anon who called me "mentally ill" did castrate himself.
3. Taking anti-androgens is considered castration too. Not just by me – by doctors.
>Women voting is a bad thing
>I shouldn't get the vote either
Holy fuck not even the person you were talking to, but you are an incredibly sad human being who probably has really low self-esteem and I'm sorry
>I really don't see how that's "self-harm", it's just body modification.
Except the effect of this particular "modification" isn't much different from cancer: both are wasting and crippling.
>There's no issue with it as long as you pay for it yourself, and are aware of the consequences.
There is no issue that we are losing a whole generation of dickgirls to a Nazi "eugenic" project??? As long as they are gullible and pay for their own destruction? Pardon me.
/lgbt/ is Auschwitz in Japanese candy wrap.
>There's no issue with it as long as you pay for it yourself, and are aware of the consequences.
How am I supposed to milk them for cum when 99 in 100 get castrated? There is no issue if I stay alone forever because some meme destroys all my lovers? Bad troll.
>Trans women are supposed to have low testosterone compared to MALE standards. Otherwise HRT is utterly pointless.
It would be entirely enough if they had low testosterone compared to HIGH-TESTOSTERONE MALE standards... but I could even dispute that.
The point of HRT is to make them WOMEN, not cripples.
Low testosterone isn't any more "feminine" than low IQ or brittle bones (osteoporosis) or breast cancer. Even though all these things are "normal" for women.
They simply see biological females as inferior so they basically say stand back and do the job that most American women can't do which is get back in the fucking kitchen and stop acting like a god damn man. Grow your hair out, wear make up, and wear some damn girly outfits. Sheesh.
But the female brain does not function properly in the presence of male-level testosterone. That's WHY dysphoria occurs in the first place. Not to mention that a reduction in testosterone below the normal male level is really the only way you'll ever have a chance of having an even remotely feminine body.
>Women voting is a bad thing
Why? Literally every argument I've heard against it reduces down to "because they vote for thinks I disagree with."
>Next you'll call me transphobic for thinking I shouldn't get the vote either for being mtf.
Not transphobic just an Auntie Milo.
The reason eugenics is bad is because it was forced on people. If you think voluntary castration is eugenics, you must also think that any sexual decision made by anyone is eugenics as well.
You are not entitled to infringe on the rights of others for your own sexual fulfillment.
>You are not entitled to infringe on the rights of others for your own sexual fulfillment.
So, according to you, it's "the rights of others" when you turn 99 trannies in 100 into voluntary eunuchs for YOUR fulfillment... but it's "infringement" when I turn 5 trannies in 100 into voluntary semen demons for MY fulfillment?
And this is exactly why? Because your fulfillment isn't sexual?
Classic feminazi impudence. "My rights are anything I approve of."
But I'm not saying I'm entitled to "turn" anyone into anything. If a femboy wants to undergo medical transition, that's his own choice. I'm not entitled to demand they transition, and you're not entitled to demand they don't transition.
>If a femboy wants to undergo medical transition, that's his own choice.
But if a femboy wants to become a milk & cum fountain for me, that's not his own choice??? Nice double standard.
>I'm not saying I'm entitled to "turn" anyone into anything.
You say this... and yet that's what you do. Those femboys don't indoctrinate into castration all by themselves.
>You say this... and, yet, that's what you're doing. Those femboys don't get indoctrinated into castration all by themselves.
Fixed my English... hopefully. I fixed it... did I?
English can be a daunting language. The rules when to use tenses present continuous and simple present seem to be a little haphazard.
>assigned male at birth who always behaved at least somewhat feminine to have a dislike for feminism.
Because at least in my experience, feminists not only play by the tribalist theme of "if you're a guy you HAVE to be a piece of shit unless proven otherwise" but most women in general will give a guy major shit for coming off as feminine.
>But if a femboy wants to become a milk & cum fountain for me, that's not his own choice??? Nice double standard.
I never said that though. Either is fine with me as long as they're not forced into it.
>You say this... and yet that's what you do. Those femboys don't indoctrinate into castration all by themselves.
No, I'm not saying we should force them into anything. Some do have dysphoria severe enough that they want medical transition. And realistically, the number of femboys genetically fortunate enough to be able to age naturally without ending up looking like a gross manbeast can be counted on one hand. For all the rest, if they don't want to end up looking manly, the only real options are suicide or transition.
>implying mras are violent misogynist old geezers
Gee, I wonder who could be behind this post..
>Either is fine with me as long as they're not forced into it.
Liar. Read your previous post again. According to you, making trans women NOT WANT to castrate themselves is "infringing on their rights". It's only "freedom" when we make them WANT to castrate themselves.
>You are not entitled to infringe on the rights of others for your own sexual fulfillment.
What are you talking about? Sure, spreading misinformation to prevent trans people from receiving appropriate medical treatment is wrong, but that's not the same as thinking femboys who are perfectly happy being cis should be forced into transition. It's about letting people do what they want, whether they're cis or trans.
>spreading misinformation to prevent trans people from receiving appropriate medical treatment is wrong
1. Implying castration is "appropriate medical treatment".
2. Managing to discuss disinformation AND spread disinformation in the same sentence.
>not the same as thinking femboys who are perfectly happy being cis should be forced into transition
3. Degrading non-OP trans women by calling them femboys.
4. Denying non-OP trans women could even exist.
5. Equating transition with SRS.
Gee, I wonder who could be behind this post.
>1. Implying castration is "appropriate medical treatment".
For people with severe gender dysphoria, it is.
>3. Degrading non-OP trans women by calling them femboys.
>4. Denying non-OP trans women could even exist.
>5. Equating transition with SRS.
Show me where I did any of those things.
Show me where I talked about femboys.
Show me where I accused you of forcing non-OP trans women into "transition" (if that's not your euphemism for SRS).
>For people with severe gender dysphoria, it is.
Not if their gender dysphoria is fuelled by /lgbt/.
>Uh, what? A normal cis white woman isn't a woman by your standards?
A normal cis white woman is no more "a woman" than a normal beta male is "a man". Neither are the FINEST specimens of their respective sexes. More: >>7780254
Mediocrity and pathology shouldn't be used as blueprints (role models) for anyone; unless the goal is to weaken respective populations.
Not that they want to harm me but I just get really tired of people pushing their political agendas too far. It creates a toxic environment to where you can't help but dislike them even if they have good intentions. Most femenists are fine I just wish we could focus on peace and equality for everyone instead of just promoting one group that separates people into categories.
In theory, they don't.
In practice, most girly boys want to be super Staci Bubblegum J-idol objects of desirability, and that's bad, because the male gaze is problematic and we shouldn't reward it, even if we literally have a willing population of dudes who have nothing else to do besides altering themselves in order to meet the fucking demand.
...However, gays who share the female gaze and want big manly dads to protect and inseminate their nonexistent wombs are 100% fine.
That the former are often the latter is one of those paradoxes that really makes you fucking think.
>that's bad, because the male gaze is problematic and we shouldn't reward it
Feminazis are just Nazis in reverse: both want to curb orgasm. Feminazis are the fifth column of liberalism and feminism. Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton have paved the way for Donald Trump.
>Feminazis are just Nazis in reverse: both want to curb orgasm.
No, the difference is that one is for race and the other is for gender.
>Feminazis are the fifth column of liberalism and feminism.
No, a fifth column is inside sympathizers. The fifth column for feminism is the traditionalist right that also wants women on a pedestal.
>No, the difference is that one is for race and the other is for gender.
Also feminists have never invaded Russia in the winter or murdered 2/3rds of one of of their least favorite genders.
Ah. I am currently appearing as cis male, and support feminism. I draw a difference between feminazis, and women fighting against the right wing anti reproductive rights, etc. theres a difference between equality feminists, and female supremacists, Julie Bindel, the one who advocated for male genocide or germaine greer about men belonging in prison or whatever, are such examples.
>I noticed that it is unusually common for people assigned male at birth who always behaved at least somewhat feminine to have a dislike for feminism
Because feminism is simply traditional gender roles under another name.
Traditionalism: "Men are strong and women are weak so men must be disposable providers and protectors of women!"
Feminism: "Men are oppressors and women are oppressed so men must be disposable providers and protectors of women!"
Feminists might as well hate girly boys seeing as they are against any change in male gender roles that doesn't suit them, as seen by their smear campaign against the men's rights movement.
>What do you think feminism would have gone if the gap was the other way around?
What are you even trying to say? That feminists would have killed more men if the Holocaust had only killed 3 million Jews? That's both irrelevant and nonsensical.
>Explain the equivalency here.
The Nazis killed 2/3rds of European Jews. Feminism hasn't come close to killing 2/3rds of men.
The men's rights movement isn't interested in any change that actually benefits atypical men, which is why feminism opposes them. They're not liberators, they're reactionaries, opposing how feminism has allegedly encouraged the ``feminization" of men which they think is leading to the downfall of society. They see any non-self hating femboy as a useful idiot at best, and a traitor at worst.
>Because many feminists have a way of painting all males as macho chauvinistic monsters.
all the while your average stronk powerful 3rd wave feminist gril will then turn around and laugh at / bully more shy, timid ("creepy") men by proxy of some chad humiliating them. but it's okay since the chad does lip service to equality so he can fuck all the vapid bimbos
>That second post was apparently deleted
That's very interesting. I've just checked it and MANY posts in that thread were deleted seemingly randomly. It suggests that they belonged to the same anon and that anon got banned. That's shocking if true because normally I am the person getting banned from 4chan for talking like everyone else, and people like him are protected and rewarded.
On the other hand, 4chan currently has some technical problems: many files have disappeared from many threads. It doesn't look like DDOS, it looks like 4chan is underfunded and its servers are creaking. So maybe vanished posts are part of this.
You can still read my response to his post: >>7805047
>I'm not this anonymous, I'm different anonymous.
Wrong. Anonymous is anonymous. You're a spokesman for everyone representing your side in our debate. You may not be that repressive anon but others who talk like you ARE. This explains why I'm aggressive.
>the men's rights movement isn't interested in any change that actually benetfits atypical men, they're reactionaries
 (inb4 We Hunted the Mammoth or some other propaganda site).
And besides even if that were true, it doesn't mean that feminists want liberation for men either.
>(inb4 We Hunted the Mammoth or some other propaganda site).
"hurr durr anything that I disagree with is propaganda even if it links to MRA's actually saying this stuff, but actual propaganda is okay if it supports my narrative".
>And besides even if that were true, it doesn't mean that feminists want liberation for men either.
Feminists at least correctly recognize what men need to be liberated from.
Plenty of feminists are terfs, first of all, so that's a big turn-off.
Secondly, anyone with a brain would want to dissociate themselves from some of the things that are being attributed to "feminism".
I, and I feel like many people, called themselves "feminists" in the past, because we believe the women should be treated as equals to men, but as the radfems became louder, the general idea of what a "feminist" is changed, and we no longer feel as if the label of "feminist" describes what we believe.
I think the new term people are using is "egalitarian" or "humanist" to mean they believe in equality between the sexes, not the perverted ideology associated with the term "feminism".
>Because that's what women without testosterone are. I call it "unfeminine".
Oh wow, so you made up a word because you're a woman with high-T and you don't like that you have masculine features, so you put down women with low-T to feel better about yourself.
>a woman with hight-T
I call this "feminine".
>to feel better about yourself
I don't think it's possible to feel much better.
Patriarchy theory is a load of shit that blames everything on some plot to oppress women. And that's why feminine men do not like feminism, becaus all of their problems are said to be just the 'patriarchy' backfiring on them in the process of oppression women. (and if a woman is discriminated against for acting masculine, it's also oppression against women!)
You're not wrong however that unfortunately most men don't support men's liberation. Of course feminism is a large part of that in suppressing and smearing any attempts to liberate men so that men don't wake up.
I agree that the problems of fem men have nothing to do with patriarchy or misogyny, but I don't think supporting woman-hating dolts like those of the MRM will ever bring anything good.
>The only real problem girly men have nowadays is being the target of violence at school, and even that lasts only some 10 years or so.
Even if there is no other stigma for being an effeminate man, school violence can be very bad, especially over 10+ years.
Patriarchy theory has nothing to do with a "plot". That's like saying "gravity is the scientific theory that God doesn't like you steeling his stuff."
And it's not "backfiring", it's functioning exactly as expected, the patriarchy is for the exclusive benefit of HETERONORMATIVE men.
One of the main "issues" that MRAs are supposedly fighting for is for the "right" of fathers to keep children after divorce. Only, the disparity is almost entirely explained by men being less willing to fight for it in court. And yet they have the nerve to say the wage gap isn't a problem because "women choose lower paying jobs".
It's a well known fact that father get screwed over in divorce courts. That study you referred to isn't exactly accurate either: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fatherhood/11647915/Are-divorced-dads-really-treated-fairly-by-the-family-courts.html
women hate inconfident men. it's in their nature. if you're a uncle tom fag / trannie who fits all the stereotypes they'll get a kick out of adding you to their friendcircle as some weird accessoire of broken, deconstructed masculinity that they can use to fuel the gril power train with and bitch about their hetero guy peers using classic one liners such as
> why are all the best looking guys gay?
which to them seems like a brilliant twofer in that it both makes them look super progressive and that it acts as some twisted shit test to potential jock twats the most macho of which they will without fail fuck and enter consecutive short term relationships with only to turn around and bitch about how all men are uncaring dicks after they drop their sorry ass; all the while rejecting less traditionally testosterone-fueled, macho men who sit and watch and casually contemplate suicide stuck in traffic on their morning commute
>rejecting less traditionally testosterone-fueled, macho men who sit and watch and casually contemplate suicide stuck in traffic on their morning commute
Serves them right for being beta white knight cucks who base their entire self-worth on getting fucked by shallow man-hating sluts.
What about those feminine men who aren't white knight scumbags? (I'd assume that more masculine than feminine men would be white knights anyway since being a disposable protector of women is a traditionally masculine role)
They shouldn't be caring about what kind of woman in the first place. The ones who are getting their karma are the ones desperate to be disposable protectors while crying over being friend zoned by chicks who would rather fuck the macho men who actually meet the stereotype the betas envy.
> male gender role and fatherhood are a complete clusterfuck these days
> masculinity is both still desired in practice but also under constant attack in media and pop culture
> feminism has a chockehold on the whole narrative
> boys grow up into fucked up inconfident underperforming men in this environment
> this is somehow their fault
It is their fault if they are cuck enough to fall for the narrative and bitch about masculinity on the one hand while crying when they get overlooked for being betas by chicks who want masculinity on the other.
>It is their fault if they are cuck enough
>It's black people's fault they have the most criminals regardless of poverty and lack of opportunity
>It's a jew's fault if he gets gassed if he doesnt run fast enough
>It's X fault if Y happens completely disregarding environmental factors
Nobody's forcing them to hate themselves for their good qualities.
Don't tell me you feel any sympathy for the self-proclaimed "nice guy" who tells men they don't treat their girlfriends right and then wonders why he can't get laid despite being more respectful to women than any man he knows.
you can't just change 20 years of feminist upbringing and indoctrination by deciding you want to
>the self-proclaimed "nice guy"
anyways why do i dislike feminism is the topic of this thread and this is my answer. it's one massive shit test that does fuck all for anyone except women and the top 10% of jock twats, everyone else gets marginalised and ostrazised unless you uncletom it up to eleven
no thank you
It does benefit them, they're just so used to benefiting from it that they're incapable of comprehending that women don't also benefit from them. But it goes beyond benefitting them, it also grants them autonomy, wheras the "benefits" women receive from benevolent sexism are just a gilded cage.
What you call "special treatment" is merely a euphemism for sex segregation, and you'd have to be literally retarded to say that forcing different roles and opportunities on people solely on the basis of sex isn't sexist.
>they're just so used to benefiting from it that they're incapable of comprehending that women don't also benefit from them.
Switch the genders here and you've just explained why feminists deny female privilege.
>it also grants them autonomy, wheras the "benefits" women receive from benevolent sexism are just a gilded cage.
Men do not have autonomy under our gynocentric society. Women do.
>being allowed to show weakened without people disgusted or telling you to man up is a gilded cage
>it being seen as more unacceptable to hit you than to hit men is a gilded cage
>being automatically seen as worthy of protection is a gilded cage
>getting 63% less jail time for the same crime is a gilded cage
>more freedom in their gender roles and how they express themselves is a gilded cage
>being able to insist on ridiculous standards in men such as they all must 6 feet or over muscular educated and rich is a gilded cage
>having an influential movement to protect and look out for your needs is a gilded cage
W E W
I don't think feminism is a conspiracy, or virus or religion or whatever but I do think it's a ridiculous ideological lense in the West. Most issues pointed out by Western feminists aren't questions of sexism but the result of their actions and society.
For instance, not many women in stem. So get a stem degree. Don't get a degree that enables you only to point out the lack of stem women.
Sometimes they twist information for personal gain. Wage gap myth is a biggie. Silencing dissenters Mccarthy style is another.
They've also historically been critical of transitioning, so they're not any kind of natural ally of mine. Doesn't help they lump those non binary guys in with me creating a cluster fuck.
They redefine words to suit their agenda, cite bogus statistics and most importantly of all: refuse to address the real misogynistic cultures in the world.
Keep your feminism, I don't want it, I don't need it, I don't want your representation.
Emma Goldman was okay though.
I don't think they do much to really combat either. It's just another overstudied underthought academic past time. Some shady people use it for a quick buck or social protection, I'm sure others are just ignorant or think it's helpful. But at I can't think of any major advancements made by Western feminists recently outside of dumbing down whatever issues they insert themselves into.
Abortion right? The debate should be about bodily autonomy, when the fetus is alive, what kind of a life is it, the founder of planned parenthood embraced eugenics, should the government be funding this, is this is a state issue, can we really expect somebody to mother a rape baby, etc
Instead it's set aside as a "women's rights" issue and we lose all this nuance in the noise.
It just makes people more galvanized towards misandry/misogyny.
I agree about the abortion debate. It's not a woman vs the world issue, even though it's one that applies to women more directly than men.
What can be done to fight genuine misogyny and misandry then?
>it's the men beating you up faggot
Usually yes but not always (and that's not counting the cases where a woman tells her white knight boyfriend to beat up another man or he does so to impress her)
>it's the patriarchy telling you're a fag
Ah the mythical 'patriarchy' again (which of course is the fault of men so men don't need to their issues solved women are oppressed!). Feminists also enforce gender roles, like with their male tears mugs and attacking their enemies as 'whiners' and 'neckbeards'.
Dude all the times I've been called a fag irl and not playful like here it's been by men.
Walking down the street? Men.
At a party with girl friends? Men
I've never been an object for a girl to tell her bf to hit. That's silly. Women may not respect me if I'm trans and that's shit but they're not gonna beat me up for making their penis confused.
Men need to solve so many issues and feminism helps some of them. Mra's are fucking themselves complaining about nonsense. They run the fish on becoming the very sjws they hate.
The femanazi and the MRA/rp guys are the same on opposite ends. No one's doing shit to help. The MRA's don't start shelters or help gay and trans men.
WTF are you doing except complaining and straw man feminists and circle jerkin pussypass denied shit.
Do something about male rape in prison. Bring awareness.
Do you know how often I see rape jokes from men about male rape? "He's gonna get it in prison!!! Lollll"
Gender norms are almost 100% of the time reinforced by the same gender. Men and women pick on GNC men and women respectively, men are violent to men, women are catty to women. In other cultures too, footbinding and FGM were/are both done by mothers to daughters.
This is the funniest thing I've ever read because MRAs are literally just more retarded feminists. Everything bad about feminism is there, and they've turned it all the way up to potato.
That explains it, trans acceptance is a lot stronger than acceptance of feminine men.
>why aren't mras doing anything
The MRM simply doesn't have the manpower or support to do it. They are a small movement intensely despised and demonised by feminism, traditional gender role propotents and the media. Right now they are currently trying to raise awareness and support. Earl Silverman tried to open a shelter and look how he ended up.
Lesbians and bi women aren't really affected and gays should be fine as long as homophobia doesn't rise again and feminists decide they are also privileged. Bi men face trouble gaining female partners due to bisexuality in men being seen as 'unmanly'.
It's bad for Transwomen though. If TERFs manage to gain control of the feminist movement (and they are gaining momentum), transwomen might be screwed. Transmen won't fare too well either but TERFs don't really care about them as much other than seeing them as traitors.
Because nearly all the abuse in my life has been from women to the point where I actually find myself unable to connect with women because after the 10th backstabbing it's just not worth it.
>"hurr durr anything that I disagree with is propaganda even if it links to MRA's actually saying this stuff, but actual propaganda is okay if it supports my narrative
You realize how stupid this is, right? You want me to link some TERF site or a literal "kill all men" feminist blog? It will be nice to see how quickly you resort to #notallfeminists and "they don't speak for REAL feminism"
Yeah except these people are actually big names in the Manosphere. The "bad feminists" are usually either teenagers who don't even know what they're talking about, or "feminists-in-name-only" like the TERFs who are pretty much unanimously rejected by the mainstream feminist community. The problem with MRAs isn't that "some horrible people call themselves MRAs", it's that even MRA's who are moderates, or "don't worry, I'm not one of the bad ones" types, still end up defending those scumbags, rather than recognizing that they're a threat to the legitimacy of the movement and need to be cast out if you actually care about the well-being of men.
>The "bad feminists" are usually either teenagers who don't even know what they're talking about, or "feminists-in-name-only" like the TERFs who are pretty much unanimously rejected by the mainstream feminist community.
All feminists in power seem to be "bad feminists". People who say they are feminists but never do any activism may be okay, but people who do feminist activism are almost universally terrible people.
>The "bad feminists" are usually either teenagers who don't even know what they're talking about, or "feminists-in-name-only" like the TERFs who are pretty much unanimously rejected by the mainstream feminist community
Like Mary Koss? How about the feminist movement campaigning against gender neutral rape laws in India and Israel? Or the Duluth Model? Or Hillary Clinton saying women are the primary victims of war and supporting 'gender responsive courts'.
Why do MRAs go on about this so much? It's not a cornerstone of feminism, I wouldn't have even HEARD ABOUT IT in the first place if it wasn't for MRA's, even though I know a lot of feminists. And people bring it up as this horrible thing, without saying why it's bad, but merely bringing it up like everyone should be expected to KNOW it's bad. But if you actually read about it, really all it's saying is that domestic abuse can be caused by social norms, and I don't see why that's so controversial, unless you're the kind of person who's gone off the deep end and outright deny that social norms can ever have any effect on human behavior. Most of the criticisms of the Duluth model that I've found are basically based in a black-and-white view of things, basically being "this is a bad model because it doesn't explain everything", even though that's true of most theories, they're just general principles. Their reasoning that the Duluth model is "harmful" depends on the assumption that everyone who uses it treats it like the literal word of God and assumes it explains literally all domestic violence. When that really doesn't seem to be the point - it's just a theory explaining a specific pattern of domestic violence, not a one-size-fits-all model.
>I wouldn't have even HEARD ABOUT IT in the first place if it wasn't for MRA's, even though I know a lot of feminists.
And your point is what exactly? MRA's use it to condemn feminism, even though A) they have not provided sufficient evidence that it is irredeemably bad and B) they have not shown it is a fundamental component of feminism.
I'm MtF and always acted feminine since I was young. I'm not critical of feminism really, I'm just critical of some of their ideas and radicals, but gender equality as a whole is something I'm wholly for. Men and women both have certain advantages and disadvantages in society and I wish both sides could realize that and try to fix both of those problems rather than only focusing on their own and ignoring the issues of the other sex. That only helps to create more division and lessen the goal of gender equality, it doesn't help.
But OP you realize most people in general dislike feminism or at least don't really care either way, that includes biological women.
Feminist are just that 1% of annoying people (who happened to be women usually of the masculine variety) that most people don't care about.
Idk why people keep making these threads....nobody likes feminists anyway lol.
Can a feminist explain how women are oppressed to me?
When I think of oppression I think of the way that gays and blacks are treated in society.
Black are more likely to be assaulted and murdered than white, therefor they are more oppressed than whites.
Gays are more likely to be assaulted and murdered than straights, therefor they are more oppressed than straights.
Women are less likely to be assaulted and murdered than men, therefor they are not oppressed.
Blacks and gays get longer sentences for the same crime. Women get shorter sentences
Blacks and gays have less access to education. Women have more access. Blacks and gays are more likely to be homeless. Women are less likely to be homeless. Blacks and gays have harmful societal injustices that make them resort to alcoholism and drugs. Women are less likely to resort to alcoholism and drugs.
Literally every way blacks and gays are oppressed women are the exact opposite. From the point of view of a gay poc women, especially white women, are the most fucking privilege people to have ever walked the planet.
"Privilege" isn't only about treatment, it's also about power. Women get preferential treatment, but for the most part it's just a gilded cage. And this is true even in primitive/third world societies, in those societies women are CLEARLY lacking in rights, but they're still taken care of by men, and not expected to have to fight in combat, etc. Defining "privilege" based ONLY on preferential treatment is silly, because it leads to conclusions like physically disabled men are more privileged than able-bodied men, even though until very recently men with severe physical disabilities were for all practical purposes unable to leave the house.
So do you really believe that women, who make up the largest voting block, lack power? How do you define power? What gives the average man more power than the average woman?
If you define money as power consider that although men earn the majority of money women are the ones that spend the vast majority of money, and they spend nearly 5 times as much on themselves as men do. Considering women control the majority of money do you think it is odd that we have coalitions for the rights and needs of women but not for men.
>So do you really believe that women, who make up the largest voting block, lack power? How do you define power? What gives the average man more power than the average woman?
Doesn't it seem odd to you that the United States has never had a female president? No women has even come CLOSE before the last decade or so. And even in countries that have had female presidents/prime ministers/chancellors, the vast majority of people holding those positions have still been men.
>If you define money as power consider that although men earn the majority of money women are the ones that spend the vast majority of money, and they spend nearly 5 times as much on themselves as men do. Considering women control the majority of money do you think it is odd that we have coalitions for the rights and needs of women but not for men.
Spending money doesn't mean you can control it. Men merely ALLOW them to spend the money, and can reverse that decision at any moment, you can only really control money if you have a way of obtaining it on your own, not relying on handouts from others who you don't control.
Privilege arises from a confluence of different factors. Obviously a white cis het woman is more privileged than most gays or blacks. But a black woman is less privileged than a black man, for example. Privilege isn't something you either have or you don't, it's a scale.
Black me who are the most likely to be shot, most likely to be incarcerated, most likely to be followed in a store, most likely to be harrased by police. Do you really think they have it better than black women, and if so how?
What about lesbians vs gays. Gays are still the number one target of hate crimes.
If privilege is a scale why do women so adamantly deny they have it.
Also you brought of politicians which again mean nothing to the average Joe. How is the average women not more privileged that. The average man. I think you spend too much time looking at the top when if you looked down you would find you are walking on the dead and dying bodies of blacks, gays and men.
>Spending money doesn't mean you can control it
do you live in fucking bizarro world?
young women make more than young men, you know. they're also more educated.
you're not oppressed you're actually more powerful in the economic sense AND you have many privileges when it comes to court
Okay, that's different. The poster I was replying to claimed that women were privileged because men allow them to spend their money. Which is nonsense, because that means women don't actually control the money. If women earn more money, then they do control the money.
>If privilege is a scale why do women so adamantly deny they have it.
They don't. They just deny that they have privilege FROM BEING A WOMAN. Most white cishet women are well aware that they're more privileged than white trans people or black people.