/pol/ You hate third wave feminists. But.. Why don't yo

>>136198995
Yes, sometimes they seem "anti-men" but come one. Many people are secretly or openly "anti-the opposite sex"

>>136198995
Also they are pretty anti-globalisation, capitalism, etc

>>136198995
>anti-porn
Dude, half of /pol/ is porn-addicted.
Radical feminists are also anti-sexbots.
REEEEEEEEEE

>>136199699
Isn't porn jewish strategy too?

>>136198995
Also, they are very critical about islam, unlike liberal feminists.

>Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.
>Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and institutions, rather than through a purely political process. This includes challenging the notion of traditional gender roles, [...].
That's pretty much been achieved and western nations are dying.
So what's missing, 50% of politicians and CEOs need to be women and then everything's gonna be fine?

You know the left has gone full-on crazy when even the commie bulldykes are complaining about it.

>>136200009
>male supremacy
>abolished
Nope. Men still hold desproportionately more power than women

The gender roles thing can be true thou. But in general rad feminism is better than the other. Is more logic and fair

File: Gender.png (81KB, 460x347px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 460x347px

At least they are critical of this stupidity

>>136200246
>Nope. Men still hold desproportionately more power than women
Not in a meaningful manner. If there's an imbalance among the elite of a society, it's not going to affect the daily lives of ordinary people. This idea that there's a "patriarchy" and that the male leaders on top are helping those at the bottom oppress women is ridiculous. It doesn't benefit me shit if Bill Gates is rich or that Trump is president just because they have penises.
Among ordinary people, women earn more than men. And control even more of the finances.
As a side-effect, the marriage and birth rates are going down because women tend to marry up in status and men don't care if they marry up or down (so they often marry down). This is mostly for biological reasons. Feminists cannot change this.
To compensate for this, men tended to work harder, endure more hardships, sacrifice more, to raise their value to be able to have a family. Many women were OK with this. The imbalances in different areas balanced out to make a functioning society. Right now, the government intervenes to make sure things are "equal" between genders (by outsourcing men's jobs, encouraging women to get better educated than men, creating a huge government that employs them using public money, etc).
And immigration has to make up for the low birth rates due to these feminist policies.
No civilization has ever survived feminism. None.
Feminism is cancer. What we need is to restore family values. Not white sharia, that's overkill. Just stop the government from trying to create a feminist utopia and let people do what they want. Make sure men have jobs. A lot of women will want families in their 20s and 30s (instead of slaving away for corporations) and a lot of men will want to work hard to provide for them. Women that want to work before or after having children can if they want to (assuming there isn't too much of an immigrant labor surplus).

That ID

>>136199099
read an article about germane greer a couple years ago about her views on trannies causing an uproar, and i actually agreed with her. spooked me the fuck out.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jen-gerson-is-noted-feminist-germaine-greer-a-hateful-anti-transgendered-misogynist/wcm/df8ac2be-9804-44fe-9e00-dd22e9152249

>>136201399
>This idea that there's a "patriarchy" and that the male leaders on top are helping those at the bottom oppress women is ridiculous.

Men in general are more likely to be promoted at work, for example. Women are more likely to be considered dumb, bossy, whinny, or whatever at work. Also, women tend to earn less and have higher unemployment rate.

>Among ordinary people, women earn more than men.
Source. This is not happening in my country

>Low birth rates.
What if we teach men to have a proportional role in raising and educating children, and doing housework, so more women are willing to marry and have a family?

>No civilization has ever survived feminism. None.
Feminism is very new, duh. All civilizations have survived it until now.
>>136201845
lol

File: gail-dines.jpg (74KB, 692x454px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 692x454px

They told you

>>136198995
I hate feminism period, it has destoryed what is the natural order between man and woman.

>>136201399
Mass immigration has happened in history before any women's rights movement. The relationship between these two things that you suggest is not clear. People have always migrated to escape poverty or war.

>>136202636
>Men in general are more likely to be promoted at work, for example. Women are more likely to be considered dumb, bossy, whinny, or whatever at work. Also, women tend to earn less and have higher unemployment rate.
For good reasons. This is not necessarily unfair. Although sometimes it is.
Dumb quotas do not make it more fair. It happens that they just promote the dumb bimbo over the smart lady who worked her ass of. And then everyone starts distrusting women at work even more.
>Source. This is not happening in my country
Look, your country is shit. Yeah, it probably does need feminism. The third world needs feminism too. Reasonable feminism.
But feminism is what's destroying our countries as it is. It was overachieved and it has an insane notion of what "equality" is. One that completely ignores or mischaracterizes human nature.
>What if we teach men to have a proportional role in raising and educating children, and doing housework, so more women are willing to marry and have a family?
Not enough. It doesn't even help.
This was the promise of the feminists. That men and women were interchangeable. That we would both work and raise children.
It did not work, for many reasons. This is not why women are not having families and the birth rate is low.
Feminists have already admitted defeat in preserving the family unit and western culture. That's why they are *very* pro-immigration and even welcoming of Islam. That's also because there are economic interests behind all large social movement like this, and those interests support globalization and multi-culturalism. They probably knew feminism would never work and that's why they supported it.
>Feminism is very new, duh. All civilizations have survived it until now.
Nope. It is not new. It's a natural stage of cultural decline.
It was one of the main causes behind the fall of Rome.

>>136198995
They literally want to genocide men.

File: Bjorn-Andresen-The-Boy-Cover-by-David-Bailey-1970.jpg (7KB, 193x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 193x250px

ITT let's post radical feminist stuff.

>A book of art history, The Beautiful Boy (2003) was illustrated with 200 photographs of what The Observer called "succulent teenage male beauty." Greer described the book as an attempt to address modern women's apparent indifference to the teenage boy as a sexual object and to "advance women's reclamation of their capacity for, and right to, visual pleasure."

>>136203840
>Dumb quotas do not make it more fair
That's true but the point is that women still have some problems... There is not equality yet, and patriarchy is prevalent, maybe not as a legal thing anymore but as a cultural thing. This is true in my country and in yours.

>Look, your country is shit.
But, women in the first world complain about the wage gap too. That's why i ask
And nothing is destroying your countries. They are all fine and better than they ever have been in all senses. Stop this pesimism. Your life quality is the highest in the world.

>Not enough. It doesn't even help.
Maybe we need more work towards it. I've seen some MRA complaining about custrody while many men still believe the mother is and must be more important than the father. Is a cultural thing to change. And you did not explain why "this is not why women are not having families". I'm a women and i think it is.
Radical feminists are often critical of islam, because of patriarcal ideas. Some are marxists pieces of shit that hate "globalism" too.

>It was one of the main causes behind the fall of Rome.
Ok, this is very historically unaccurate

>>136204226
Ok, this is creepy and wrong.

The traditional family and gender roles are dead and will never come back. No woman after have felt freedom will want to be a man's slave.

>>136204806
>There is not equality yet
Because men and women are different and want different things out of life.
We have equality of economic opportunities. Women are actually massively privileged in the west when it comes to that.
>and patriarchy is prevalent
Our society is downright gynocentric.
"Patriarchy", the way feminists define it, is a stupid concept in the west.
>But, women in the first world complain about the wage gap too.
It is a myth.
>And nothing is destroying your countries. They are all fine and better than they ever have been in all senses. Stop this pesimism. Your life quality is the highest in the world.
Yeah, for now.
Demography is the future. Western culture is dying. We'll probably turn into something resembling Brazil. We talk a lot about the potential future of the west here. I don't want to get into it again.
>And you did not explain why "this is not why women are not having families".
It's wishful thinking that people will still form functional family units without some semblance of gender roles. Why would they? It's easy to see why they would under more traditional systems. It may have been too oppressive at first, but in the west women were free to do as they please if they did not like the system.
What makes the feminists' system work, family-wise? There's nothing there encouraging it.
The thing is that they deny the biological differences between genders which are very important when it comes to mating and the sexual power dynamic. Every civilizations that have lasted understood that and developed systems to deal with it.

>>136205349
It's more the men that were their slaves really.
Women in the west were free to work if they wanted to. But they had to work as hard as men. Not rely on the government forcing equal outcomes.

>>136204852
And it's an example of feminists wishfully thinking that genders could become the same if culture were different.

>>136198995
because they still hate men, we want equality here well some of us do.

>>136207197
>equality
This could mean a lot of things though. I don't want women to have less rights than men. But forced equality of outcomes is actually violating people's choices. And it sabotages society's natural way to respond to imbalances in other areas.

>>136198995
shut. the. fuck. up. faggot

bye you jungle fuck

>>136205349
Women don't want freedom. They end up alone and miserable.

They want to marry a successful Chad and raise a family. That's it.

File: images (7).jpg (2KB, 67x103px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 67x103px

>>136207749
maybe

>>136208103
No maybe.

It's fact.

>>136202961
Absolutely. And "third wave" feminism is a term that just refers to its fascist Third Reich tendencies

File: images (4).jpg (6KB, 276x182px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 276x182px

>>136208343
ok