You know, feminism, via Beauvoir, originally grew out of existentialism. And it is true that she advocated free love, but the thing is that today, feminism is almost exclusively about money and sex. How did feminism fall from "existentialism from women" to the capitalist level of defining freedom solely in terms of money and sex?
>>385043
>You know, feminism
FUCKING DROPPED
SORRY PAL, BUT THIS THREAD WAS RUINED FROM THE START.
You want real discussion? Well I'd look elsewhere, but for now, nice bait.
Originally Aryan supremacy was about being the smarter master race than the Jews. But then the Jews control everything and are smarter than white people. How did Aryan supremacy go from hating Jews because they were worse to hating Jews because they are better?
>>385071
>Jews
>Good
>>385043
Perhaps as the movement grew idiots began misappropriating the ideas to further their own political ambitions?
>>385432
>invention implies ownership
>m-muh intellecktuel property
>>385043
>>385085
Easy enough, capitalist appropriation of populist ideas. Once a good political idea hits the general population, politicians and other people of power will try to dumb it down for the general public.
With that said, sex and money are linked in Western culture. Sex sells, and people sell sex. It's hard to separate that so quickly when most of the population is assimilated into that model.
Hence, capitalist appropriation of sexual liberation.
>>385479
Yeah, but I don't meant just sex and money being associated, I mean freedom being defined solely in those terms, when postwar feminism was originally just existentialism for women. Notes from Underground is literally much closer to it than what we have today.
>>385043
because human nature desu.
"In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society."
>>385511
Ah, I kind of understand. I think the veering away from existential discussion had to do some with the post-suffrage push for economic power in order to exist freely because "yay equality," but eventually in the late-60's and early 70's that got mixed with American sexuality movements, which created a conflation of sex and gender and thus pushed the "sexuality" narrative more than the "liberation/existentalism" narrative that the sexuality was meant to be attached to.
(Which I think also is why gender today is so focused on neoliberal approaches as opposed to attacking the overall system -- i.e. nonbinary genders. But I digress.)
>>385565
>NEOLIBERAL
STOP TALKING ABOUT THINGS YOU DONT UNDERSTAND
>>385577
I'M TALKING THE CULTURAL EXPRESSION DEFINITION OF NEOLIBERAL, GO BACK TO /POL/ AND LEARN HOW TO EVALUATE CONTEXT
>>385593
THERE IS NO SUCH THING FUCKING IDIOT
>>385605
HOLY SHIT YES THERE IS LEARN HOW TO MULTI-DISCIPLINE
THERE ARE BASICALLY TWO ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS IN ACADEMIA:
1) THE PURELY POLITICAL-ECONOMIC VERSION THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH MODERN ECONOMICS, ESPECIALLY THE FREE MARKET
2) IN CULTURAL STUDIES, INCLUDING FEMINISM, A MODERN FORM OF EXPRESSION CENTERED AROUND THE CONCEPT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVES THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER HOW THEY CONSUME CULTURE, ENGAGE IN THE ECONOMY, AND PRESENT THEMSELVES, AND THAT THIS INDIVIDUALISM IS ALL-IMPORTANT
GENDER CAN ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN A NEOLIBERAL SENSE GIVEN MODERN GENDER DEFINITIONS ESPECIALLY DEVIATING FROM "MASCULINE VS FEMININE" ARE SELF-DEFINED AND SELF-CONTAINED, AND INDIVIDUALS DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR ROLE IN HOW IT AFFECTS GREATER DISCOURSE
"NEOLIBERAL" AS A WORD HAS CHANGED OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS SO GET WITH THE FUCKING PROGRAM
>>385605
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-milbank/liberalism-undoing-itself_b_7104638.html
>>385667
>making shit up
Okay, keep telling yourself that, man. I came to this thread to chat about why feminism has gone to shit, not the definition of one of the most overused and redefined words in academia because some idiot decided to use his community college degree in economics as a cumrag and hasn't learned shit since.
>>385043
Guys can we just talk about how much we want to fuck Alice instead? This thread is fucking shit.
I wish japs would write more doujinshi about here. That shit's fucking great.
How much would it cost to fuck her?
I'd pay a couple grand to do it.
>>385727
Your single source was a huffpo article that only used the term neoliberal in the economic sense. Now you're just making a fool of yourself.
>>385730
That article wasn't posted by me though. I've known about the divergent definitions for a few years now. Cultural studies have picked up the word in their own terms in the last few years in response to the massive and rapid shift in focus on individualist theories, especially with social media shaping cultural consumption and creating independent platforms for identity formation.
Neoliberal economic policies are much different than even what the Huffpo (ewwww) discusses. And they say "neoliberal" once, and it's barely relevant to what I'm saying.
Anyway thread's dead, hope you learned something, OP, and I'd fuck Alice in a heartbeat.
>>385759
>no sources
>Anyway thread's dead, hope you learned something
I learned that people that whine about feminism have no clue what they're talking about. Oh wait, I already knew that.
>feminism has gone too far!
I bet men in the 1940s were saying the same thing.
>>385511
since what they call the enlightenment, the liberals have faith in the human rights which sanctify the concept of
-identity
-personal identity
-self
-consent
-free decision
and when you mix those with the human nature which is far more hedonistic, than anything else, insisting far more on liberty than responsibility in order to better hype their doctrine, you end up with the faith in the concept of personal identity through sex/gender.
here a summary of people
-women are egotistic (histrionic+hedonistic) without being explicitly narcissistic
the feminists despise the poor and the ugly. they have no problem when men that they see as handsome behave in the way that the poor and the ugly behave.
-betas [chads and robots] are devoted towards women, in giving them sex, entertainment and comfort and expect some validation of their existence through women
-alphas do not worry about women; they are narcissistic without being egotistic
then, after the creation of the middle class by the liberals [who are the hedonists having the means for their hedonism], the liberals must deal with them; but thus far, they only manage to make the populace work and dwell in leisure. a few liberals think they are classical rationalist and which that their liberal doctrine since the human rights are not here for explicit hedonism, but for progress, since the rationalist has faith in progress in science, technology, society; the progress is done in the university through the creation of models, concepts, theories and the fantasy of the liberal-rationalist is to '' learn while you have fun ''.
so their plan is to spend billions year after year on the middle class in order to educate it to output good liberals.
of course, most people are not on earth to be something else than hedonistic.
>>385985
so you have a tension hedonism-rationalism. since the national education is explicitly authoritative, as usual motivated by some terror of anarchism, chaos if people are not educated in the same way, but the liberal assuming very poorly his authority [accept the human rights and my constitution or I invade your country], you can manage the population only through hedonism. Hence the new morality through emotions where to be moral is to be assured that the other parties wherewith you act are not hurt emotionality
this is what feminism is about currently and what any morality will become, perhaps before a new return towards acting for the nation through again the progress in the university. Of course, this return is unlikely since the human rights being seen as universal by the liberal, the liberal attempts to impose them in any country and the praxis of the human rights being non-existent, to the point where a mandatory praxis of the human rights becomes explicitly authoritative , there remains only leisure and at best learning while we have fun. but nobody can force you to learn what the liberals think is knowledge, worthy of being learnt.
>>385043
>>386020
>>386024
>>385043
Obviously the Jews. Modern feminism has been corrupted by the very Jews running it.
>>385043
>free love
Such cancer
>to the capitalist level of defining freedom solely in terms of money and sex?
muh base and superstructure
>>385071
>manipulating currency and barter and using usury to control people
>smarter
Being a rat that knows how to take advantage of people is not being "better"
>>385973
This
>>385479
>sex sells
People say this all the time but studies show that it actually doesn't.
>>386020
>>386024
>>386028
Sex is not discreet from human socializing in general. Sexuality is not fundamentally more important in facilitating happiness than any other of the more primary forms of positive socializing (i.e. love towards family, close friends, etc).
If I am wrong, fugging a prostitute would seem to ameliorate male sexual frustration (which it, of course, really doesn't). Lumpenprole retards in sexually active and emotionally abuse relationships would be far happier than low sex drive, socially adjusted persons. This isn't really the case, now is it?
Virgin obsession over sex is a matter of charged conspicuousness.
>>385973
Er, what? I think you're very confused about what I stated in the OP. The point is that feminism has in fact become very limited.
>>386066
>muh base and superstructure
I'm not a Marxist, I'm a Christian existentialist. And I'm not sure how this relates to the OP
with all this said, women are hedonistic and histrionic only because of the devotion from the betas towards women from when they are only little girls.
and women sure appreciate this, but too many betas too fast, with most of them being ugly or poor, therefore not able to provide sex, entertainment, comfort at once, they can only reject them.
there are three kinds of women
-the child, the virgin
-the teen, the non virgin
-the post menopausal
the feminine hedonism begins in childhood, and the feminists make an outcry out of it, but they equally refuse to abandon the perks of having their desires fulfilled with little to no cost. in one word, the parents and the betas should provide for women without expecting anything in return.
and women.
only the post menopausal woman can manage to leave hedonism, but since they fall so fast so deep in hedonism and spent most of their time in it, they still long for the golden years where they could easily have some men devoted to them.
this kind of woman reaches a middle equanimity and generally turns towards ''deeper truths'' through exotic doctrines, such as buddhism, where they learn that hedonism is not so optimal, but since they remain so , they also fail at these new doctrines.
the woman has identified herself with her emotions for so long that she becomes unable to leave them.
this affair is contrary to the flock of men who experience far more misery than women. they do not hesitate to display their pride when women acknowledge them a few times in their lives, only to dive back in their misery, as soon as some bird leave them for other lovers..
women are not dumb. since most of men cannot provide the women through sex or other entertainment, women attempt to hype the houselife for men, as for example the paternity leave like the beta from facebook, as a way to be validated through women.
>>386189
of course, any man knows that a man is best validated by a woman, when the man makes her feel the most alive. Sex being the activity making you feel the most alive, in holding so close to you the reaction of the reality in response to your initial action, you can bet that betas love sex and that women being already acknowledged [by so many betas] so that they are left with only the quest for pleasure, women love sex to.
the plight of the woman is nothing but the lack of men being to provide sustainably for her beyond easing her life. easing pains is nice, but reaching a sustainable pleasure is far more difficult.
until her menopause, the woman is not able to understand her situation. and then remains the task to accept it.
so what there remains for feminists ?
-betas already know that woman love sex and love to love sex, and love sex with men that they call handsome
[but most men are not handsome, according to women]
-betas already know that women love to have fun and love to love to have fun, but most men do not have the means to provide amusement for long
-betas know that they can only afford the husband life, but it pleases the woman the least
so the feminists sell the husband life as much as they can.
on the woman side, the feminists sell the hedonist life through assertion of their self [without explicitly stating that they identify themselves as their desires and fulfilment of desires , in one word, without explicitly stating that they are hedonistic. it is quite a nice trick and most betas fall for it.]
A friend of mine is biologist and goes to university again to add a degree in evolutionary psychology to his curriculum vitae.
He told me that one of his professors explained to him that, at least on the motivational
level of the indivudial women, 3rd wave feminism and certain aspects of SJW are based on the instincitve drive of women to always rise to cost for sex with women for men, because that is their only real social bargaining chip and quick-to-wealth career option.
Especially less attractive women have most to gain from rising the cost of sex, because
highly attractive women will marry up anyway and profit from their sexy body; less attractive women, however, have a huge incentive to get more out of sex for them financially/socially, because they are most under threat of geting much less or even nothing out of their sex because the best men flock around the more attractive women, who
monopolize therefore also almost all big resource and status gains attainable for women by getting a high-status male partner.
And it is exactly less attractive women who are feminists and try to rise the cost for sex
with women for sex the most.
"Rape culture", "Male Gaze", "Stare Rape", "Micraggressions", "Rape Schedule", "Men's privilege", "Queer Theory", "Girl Power" and all those other crazy inventions and problems made up by feminists are all tailored towards one single end: Make the mass of the less top-attractive men (most attractive men get huge amounts of sex for free anyway, but are scarce and will not hook up with - generally less attracive -feminists anyway) sexually insecure - about their own's sexual urges and their appropriateness etc. - therefore rising the costs of sex for the average and lowly guy and therefore giving the feminists, that is less attractive women, more power (socially, financially) to exchange their sex more expensively in the sexual partner marketplace (it is commonplace that women only have
sex with men if they gain something from it, be it good genes, money, food, social status etc.).
What feminists do is trying to make less attractive women more sexually valuable by making average and lowly men more sexually insecure and then profit from the wider margin.
>>385043
Existentialism in general has been swallowed hole by capitalism and become a lifestyle ideology, if it wasn't one to begin with.
Feminism is just the demand that liberal equality should apply to women, there is nothing inherently anti-capitalist or critical about it.
