If you support Bernie Sanders then you are a male feminist. Prove me wrong.
>>27378486
What is that quote about?
/x/ warned me abot this
>>27378535
It says on the picture
>>27378538
About what?
>>27378486
Remember when those 2 women stormed the stage and took Bernie's microphone? And Bernie just sort of slumped in the background? That doesn't happen to us, folks.
You still think this guy cares about you, robots? You really think he'll put your needs and wants above the petty needs of feminists?
You're delusional.
>the Blunt Amendment, was proposed that "would have allowed employers to refuse to include contraception in health care coverage if it violated their religious or moral beliefs
>it was voted down 51-48 by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 2012
The funny part of this is that it only makes hiring women more expensive and less appealing. But they have their gender quotas and such so businesses will be forced to bear the extra expenses. It's like they are deliberately impeding the economic recovery.
>>27378486
because marxism and feminism are ontologically incompatible
Women are half of the population, and are often more serious about voting than men are. Of course they get pandered to by politicians. The Democrat candidate pretty much has to get women to their side, since women as a group vote more liberal.
So whether Sanders is a male feminist or not, he has to pander to women.
for anyone wondering the blunt amendment would have allowed any employer (not just those with religious affiliations) with moral objections to opt out of the coverage requirement for contraceptives.
this quote doesn't show that bernie is a feminist at all, it's just him saying that women are so close-minded that they would not even have a discussion about legislation that would prevent them from getting free shit. it's red-pilled as fuck
>>27378873
>>27378933
you're literally voting for a male feminist. Hope you remember that decision when the feminists are outlawing sexbots for being misogynist
>>27379090
>he's not a feminst
lol
direct your attention to
>>27378736
>>27379096
>>27379096
you literally can't argue for shit. Hope you remember that next time you make a post
>>27379119
At least I'm not voting for a feminst.
>>27378873
How?
bloxxxor
>prove me wrong
It's untrue, you just prioritize differently. But here's something someone who thinks the "77 cents on the dollar" that's being thrown around should watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0EYBBl5LI
Tbh I'm quite impressed that America is (in the most conservative measure of 4%) 0.2% ahead of Sweden. And in our most progressive (highest wagegap, that's not raw) we're only 3% below you (8% vs 5%)
>>27378873
>>27379119
Please give justification for claim.
>>27379156
>>27379187
If you subscribe to marxism, then the history of society is the history of class struggle.
If you are a feminist, gender is what makes the world go round.
Either you believe the world is driven by economic/class relations, or you believe it is driven by gender opression.
The two cannot both be true whilst maintaining intellectual coherence, you can only subscribe to one
>>27378933
>and are often more serious about voting than men are
Dunno about serious. More vocal certainly. More abusive and bigger suppressors certainly.
But I don't know if they check their sources more carefully than men. I have no reason to believe in either direction (other than being a man who checks a lot of sources) so I'm assuming it's the same or similar.
>>27379116
never said bernie isn't a feminist, just that OPs quote is a shitty representation of his views.
i want to say that bernie may be a feminist but he is not radical/retarded about it, but he is. he cites the shitty 'women are still making less than 80% of what men make for equal work' copypasta etc.
i still prefer him over clinton though as he's at least not an evil cunt. trump might be better, i just want a radical on either side tbhqfc
>>27379248
Couldn't you be a Marxist who believes the economic classes are purely defined by gender? Sure it's crazy but still.
>>27379273
>economic classes are purely defined by gender
but that's an oxymoron anon
>>27379248
Feminists treat men and women as classes analogous to the aristocracy and proletariat respectively. Women perform domestic, sexual and reproductive 'work' that men exploit according to 2nd wave feminists like de Beauvoir, Greer and Friedan.
Feminism is just marxism for girls.
>>27379303
No an oxymoron would be two opposites in a single word. Smartdumb.
But I get your point. My point is that if you look on the graph of all possible oppressions then gender would fall perfectly in line with economic classes (there'd be two, the rich and the poor. All women are poor, all men are rich).
I see your argument still. But is Marxism really that extreme about that? Doesn't it just claim that the most relevant parts are class/economic struggle. Surely it doesn't ignore racism at least.
Sounds like Marx was a real fool if that's the case.
>>27378486
Proof: He has female supporters.
If you are female and support Bernie Sanders you are not a male feminist.
>>27379361
you didn't make any argument here
all you did was describe the concept of gender opression
>>27379385
>oxymoron
>something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements, Mirriam Webster
checkmate, m8
>But is Marxism really that extreme about that?
Yes. It's the opening line of the communist manifesto, and it's the rock Marx builds his ENTIRE conception of the world upon. Class relations are the totality of social relations, for now, and for all of history that has gone before. That's it, that's all it is.
Racism is derivative of class relations. Internationally, it is the way the rich world interacts with the poor world.
>Sounds like Marx was a real fool if that's the case
no, he's really, really smart. You should read some of his books before you make any descisions though. And you should read the works of the people opposed to him too, make your own mind up
>>27379556
>make your own mind up
Yeah I'm obviously not gonna cite 4chan in an argument
>Class relations are the totality of social relations
So basically gender can't be the one thing?
>Racism is derivative of class relations.
Seems to conflict strongly with racist ideology though. Defending your racial purity etc. The expectation is that other races should want to do the same. Sure, he preceeded naziism but most racism had these ideas well before that. So how is that understood as being a class struggle economically? Since it doesn't have a direct motivation in economics from their end. Is the claim basically that racism exists to preserve the status quo or justify hostile takeover? Because I don't quite see that either.
>he's really, really smart
Maybe. I have read snippets of Marx and in isolation it seems sortof ok.
>>27379556
I pointed out that feminism takes its cues from marxism. In fact much of feminist theory is appropriated from marxist theory. Logically one could think of feminism as marxism applied to the domain of domestic life.
Marx literally wrote a book entitled The Origin of the Family, Private property and the State in which he decried the nuclear family as a capitalist institution and called for its dissolution. That is boilerplate feminist rhetoric today.
idk about that but if you vote for bernie youre definitely a useful idiot
>>27379727
gender can be a thing, but gender is derivative of class relations. That doesn't fit with feminism.
>So how is that understood as being a class struggle economically?
Racism takes it's cue from the nation state. The nation state is a tool of capitalists/barons to maintain class relations.
>>27379758
>In fact much of feminist theory is appropriated from marxist theory
sure
> Logically one could think of feminism as marxism applied to the domain of domestic life
lulwat. This is a baseless logical leap, Make the case.
I just like him because DUDE WEED
I have no shame i just want to get high all day err day
discussing politics with a bunch of retarded shutins like OP, nah i'll pass, fuck off you stupid nigger
>>27379271
does he have brain damage wouldnt he have been their for the equal pay act or at least alive at the time?
>>27379850
>>27379727
though I should add the caveat that that is not to say *all* racism exists because of the state, just the instance you were talking about
otherwise, it's back to the economic based class relations between peoples
>>27379758
That was Engels fammo.
The 'feminism' that arose from Marx and Engels studies of the family was very materialist in its nature. It observed that there have been hundreds of different ways families have been organised throughout the past and different cultures and that the nuclear family was just one of them, and was in no way 'natural'.
At the time of writing, women were seen as exploited in the home as they performed unpaid labour that did benefit the economy.
It had literally NOTHING to do with the fucking retarded SJW bullshit of today, which is fully endorsed by people Marxists would call the capitalist class, eg. Hillary.
>>27378486
I don't need to disprove a retarded statement. If I only supported candidates that share 100% of my views, then I would never support any candidate ever. As the race stands, he's by far the best candidate on most issues, and my annoyance at his feminist leanings are much smaller issues than actual policy positions on domestic and foreign policy.
>>27379881
the only acceptable reason, honestly
>>27378486
>if you support Bernie Sanders then you are OG red pill
FTFY
>>27378486
Is this supposed to be some ground shattering opinion?
he's running a progressive, lgbtq rights, feminist, equality socialist platform, he is like the fucking SJW king, of course his supporters are like him, you're any less of a turbo SJW you vote hillaryyou can also be a complete fucking retard and vote GOP
politics explained, your welcome
>>27380128
that was actually a really good article. its pretty much the frustrations of tumblr and /r9k/ combined while still being reasonable on both ends.
im suspect of whether or not he actually wrote it but if he did im impressed and will vote for him.
>>27379850
>Make the case.
Throughout history males and females were largely separate apart from domestic life as husband and wife, child and sibling. Any ideology concerning relations between men and women such as feminism must be concerned with their primary common domain. If feminism is a pastiche of marxism among other ideas then it is marxism applied to the domain in which men and women have historically interacted.
>>27379924
I wasn't talking about SJWs, I was talking about 2nd wave feminists. It's well known that Friedan was pushing the unpaid labor meme way back in the 60s.
It doesn't matter what Hill-dog and co. endorse - they're politicking.
>>27380192
Hillary cunt spotted.
>>27380192
Name one of bernie's SJW positions that he plans to put into law that would personally impact your life.
>>27380232
>Any ideology concerning relations between men and women such as feminism must be concerned with their primary common domain
ok
> If feminism is a pastiche of marxism among other ideas then it is marxism applied to the domain in which men and women have historically interacted
and here's your logical leap again
>if x is a pastiche of y plus abc, then x is y
you see? It actually makes no sense.
>>27378486
Bernie has female supporters, who are obviously not male.
Well that was easy.
>>27380313
x consists of y
y says z
x says z
but x is not a form of y
That's what you're telling me.
>>27380474
Where did I ever say they both say z??
feminism and marxism are similar because they are both critical theories. Marxism is the ORIGINAL critical theory, and feminism is one of the most prominent CTs, so ofcourse they share common factors, feminism draws on marxism, as you said yourself. But that does not mean they are the same, or that 'feminism is just marxism applied to the domestic'. That's just a baseless leap. Marxism applied to the domestic is marxism. Marx and engles talk about the nature of productive labour, and of women's emancipation in terms of class. Many women are opressed proletariat, but there are plenty of bujoir women, and capitalist women can exploit proleteriat men. Feminists talk about the opression of women in terms of gender. They are opressed because of their gender, gender is the determining factor, not their relationship to the means of production. Returning to what said at the very start, they have different ontologies. That makes them fundamentally incompatible.
>>27380652
Interesting. What about feminist attempts to affect women's relationship with the means of production (MOP)? The address it by getting women in education, to work or run businesses (take control of the MOP) and to secure payment for homemaking and childcare (via paid maternity leave and 'housewife-salaries')? Sure feminist rhetoric is gender-centric but it usually relates back to basic Marxism.The only exception I can think of is their anti-violence against women campaigning. However VAW is usually presented as a patriarchal tool for keeping women from the MOP.
>>27380981
>Sure feminist rhetoric is gender-centric but it usually relates back to basic Marxism
superficially, there actions are similar, emancipation. But on the theoretical level, which is what we were discussing, their motivation and understanding as to how to go about achieving emancipation and the nature of opression are deeply different.
Personally I think feminism actually perpetuates opression, because it shifts the focus away from class relations, and towards gender relations, which are part of false consciousness. Class society can't be overcome whilst feminists are hijacking every movement to push their gender agenda directing everyone's focus away from their true emancipation, men and women.
i'm pretty anti-sjw but i still voted for bernie
i mean yeah a lot of his supporters are tumblr-types but he still seemed like the least of the evils because his economic policies and positions on NSA surveillance and civil liberties are pretty reasonable
>>27378486
We all know Sanders is a cuck hungry for the SJW vote.
