The Cellar - View Single Post

it · 07-26-2015, 03:38 AM

Feminism related brain dump #2....

Does anyone else have the sense that the most accurate elements within all those ideologies is the critique they give each other?

The feminists & MGTOW are right - MRA truly do make a reactionist group that is unified by their fight against feminism rather then anything else. You can't argue for equal father's rights and then argue that we should go back to the providers-husbands and housewives, as that is the very dynamic that justifies keeping the father for financials support and giving the mother the major care taking time in the first place. Arguing against feminism matters very little when they can't seem to be able to choose the agenda they want to argue for, and yes, this means they need to loose some support, either loosing the neocons or the progressives, but it also means they get to actually do something beyond bickering.

The feminists and MRA are right - you can't read an MGTOW blog post anywhere without misogyny spilling out on your shoes, unlike the MRA they are clearly not above excluding women from supporting them, and they are destined to go the same way as 2nd wave feminist lesbian separatism - you can only grow your movement so much when you require people to counter their basic physical and emotional needs and you are very unlikely to grow over time at all if you don't apply the most ancient meme transfer mechanism of all - raising children. And no, a small group of hermits tying up their dicks in a chastity belt in protest isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

The MRA & MGTOW are right about most of what they have to say about feminism, which I would expend upon except that it would have to include everything they every said about anything since they had people who can speak since they don''t actually say things other then attacking feminism, so instead I'll point at what IMO is the most notable exception - their historical reevaluation of 1st wave feminism on the inherently unverifiable basis of "it would have happened anyway". The old way was a rotten deal for everyone involved, both men and women, and we don't get to pretend feminist movement didn't bring that change about on the basis of "If they wouldn't someone else would" - credit doesn't work like that, and that someone else wasn't fast enough.

07-26-2015, 03:38 AM	#175
it Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 772	Feminism related brain dump #2.... Does anyone else have the sense that the most accurate elements within all those ideologies is the critique they give each other? The feminists & MGTOW are right - MRA truly do make a reactionist group that is unified by their fight against feminism rather then anything else. You can't argue for equal father's rights and then argue that we should go back to the providers-husbands and housewives, as that is the very dynamic that justifies keeping the father for financials support and giving the mother the major care taking time in the first place. Arguing against feminism matters very little when they can't seem to be able to choose the agenda they want to argue for, and yes, this means they need to loose some support, either loosing the neocons or the progressives, but it also means they get to actually do something beyond bickering. The feminists and MRA are right - you can't read an MGTOW blog post anywhere without misogyny spilling out on your shoes, unlike the MRA they are clearly not above excluding women from supporting them, and they are destined to go the same way as 2nd wave feminist lesbian separatism - you can only grow your movement so much when you require people to counter their basic physical and emotional needs and you are very unlikely to grow over time at all if you don't apply the most ancient meme transfer mechanism of all - raising children. And no, a small group of hermits tying up their dicks in a chastity belt in protest isn't going to convince anyone of anything. The MRA & MGTOW are right about most of what they have to say about feminism, which I would expend upon except that it would have to include everything they every said about anything since they had people who can speak since they don''t actually say things other then attacking feminism, so instead I'll point at what IMO is the most notable exception - their historical reevaluation of 1st wave feminism on the inherently unverifiable basis of "it would have happened anyway". The old way was a rotten deal for everyone involved, both men and women, and we don't get to pretend feminist movement didn't bring that change about on the basis of "If they wouldn't someone else would" - credit doesn't work like that, and that someone else wasn't fast enough.