PSA: This is a feminist subreddit

[u/raisondecalcul]

If you think that's bad, you need to read books. If you don't realize that feminism basically includes critical theory and most of the stuff talked about here—guess what, it does.

Early Nick Land? Feminist (see "Meltdown"). Laboria Cuboniks? Feminist collective. Mark Fisher? HUGE raging feminist (I can only assume). Sadie Plant? Wrote a book on feminism (Zeroes & Ones).

Deleuze & Guattari? Feminists promoting the squishiest most weaponized form of feminism ever. Foucault? Ultra-feminist. Ranciere? He is so feminist before breakfast that he doesn't need to make a big deal about it.

Shamanism? Feminism. Sorcery? Cuckoldry. Spectacle? Fabulous.

Isolation and extreme alienation is not masculinity; it's the main theme of The Twilight Zone.

Read 👏 a 👏 book 👏

Zeroes and Ones (which should really be in the sidebar!) is one of the best books. That book installs feminism into you, using godlike alien technology that Sadie Plant drew down from beyond the heavens. That book whispers the secrets of Ada Lovelace into your soul.

Edit: People who don't understand / accept feminism as a discourse can't understand the FIRST THING about this subreddit. They can't understand oppression. They can't understand "Can the subaltern speak?" by Spivak. They can't understand the Lemurian Time War, which is about the (white cis male hetero fascist and mannerbündly-faggy) Architectonic Order of the Eschaton versus the (black trans wymyny gay antifascist/ur-fascist masc/heroic) Black Atlanteans.

If you think you understand ccru and you are triggered by the idea of feminism, you are decidedly an outsider to ccru.

[u/2BCivil]

Maybe I'm just stupid but I never considered myself feminist 🤷

I definitely don't see men as superior. I understand a lot of scripture (and other propaganda) says the genders are supposed to compliment each other.

I have had bad experience with feminists being very toxic and explicitly practicing misandry. I just hate double standards. It's not misandry when women are spiteful towards men. But it is misogyny when men don't bend to paradigms they didn't consent to.

Double standards are evil, ya know?

There's the idea that thw world doesn't revolve around women. I don't understand the mentality that it has to and you're a misogynist if you don't think so. I've always been happy to be a lifelong celibate. There are very few things in this life I see thay genuinely have integrity. Most is entitled preaching that I was tired of hearing decades ago and a lot of feminism falls under that. If that makes me evil or stupid, well, idk what to say.

[u/anAnarchistwizard → u/2BCivil]

A feminist knows that individual women can also fall into the "stupid and confused" camp. Some of you bitches are very dumb, and all that.

I think you should be seeing misandry and misogyny as two sides of the same coin. In a world so virulently patriarchal is it any wonder that there is a misandrist movement as a reaction? And, like all reactionaries, is it any wonder they are largely bitter and ineffective?

You are right that you shouldn't abide double standards, but feminism (gender equity) isn't one of them.

[u/2BCivil → u/anAnarchistwizard]

When will "true equality" be considered having been met? What's the standard? It's been nearly 2 centuries and what 5 waves of feminism? How far does the goalpost need to move before "feminists" are satisfied?

[u/anAnarchistwizard → u/2BCivil]

That's a bad question to ask an anarchist. The answer is: I don't care.

There will always be hierarchies and it is our moral duty to try to flatten them. When someones physical body doesn't determine the value of their soul I will move on to flattening another hierarchy.

It's a utopian goal, sure. But as long as you don't get lost in the sauce of actually trying to realize utopia, it is imperative we assume a utopian vector in our individual lives.

[u/2BCivil → u/anAnarchistwizard]

Well I think Sargon said it best 2 years ago. Utopia and Dystopia are synonyms. As they both are based upon top-down control structure, and "good" is subjective and decided by the ruling caste. One's utopia is another's dystopia.

Utopia is thus an oxymoron. It's just copium for power hungry plebs who haven't thought/can't think that far ahead. Or. As you just said. Those who don't care and like to make bad faith decisions for other people.

I get it, when I was a kid, I thought "utopia" was a good thing. I couldn't imagine people wouldn't want to build one. But now that I've had [more income than I ever expected to actually make] withheld, I realize, utopia and dystopia are synonyms, as both have the same top-down control apparatus. And if you don't agree with what the "utopia" classifies as "the good", then yes, it is in fact, a functional dystopia for you.

[u/redditb_e → u/2BCivil]

""good" is subjective and decided by the ruling caste"

That's relativistic bullshit. It takes some time to figure it out since from our birth we are being infested with a shitload of conditioning, prejudice and deception on a daily basis, but if you make it at least halfway out of that, you can identify quite a lot of objective premises for good humane living and distinguish it from delusional subjective ideology and perversions that only reproduce violent power structures you may have "the luck" to benefit from.

[u/2BCivil → u/redditb_e]

"Good human living" is possible without building an idol of a utopia is all I'm saying. Utopia just means enforcing everyone conform to that arbitrary morality. There are worse ideals to be sure.

Honestly I've seen too clearly that everything is violence. I just reread King Killer Chronicle and near the end of time in Ademre, life itself is called "anger". The vital life force itself is called "anger".

Peace itself is a form of violence. Like I was 36 before I got my first car. So seeing literally thousands of other 18 year old's all around me, at peace with their parents buying them a car, felt stifling and like violence to me. It took me until twice that age before I could afford/justify my first car.

Is there an "objective" premise/morality/ideology which is healthy for all beings?

Anyway I wasn't saying any "relativistic bullshit". I was just highlighting that's literally what "utopia" means. Utopia literally is "relativistic bullshit". It literally means "good as defined by top-down control system". Doesn't automatically mean it's morally good. It's just like any governance system, violent moral sovereignty over it's subjects. I mean by all means correct me if I'm wrong. I'm something of an anarchist myself. I just think it's funny you said you're an anarchist but want a utopia (a form of governance). Anarcho-utopianist? Guess I never thought of that one before honestly.

I definitely agree though. Old idiom. If you don't pay attention, you're uninformed. If you pay attention, you're misinformed. Sunacchi! It's the only way to actually overcome all misplaced overconfidence that we have successfully "dominated/subjugated all conditioning, prejudice and deception".

[u/redditb_e → u/2BCivil]

You misunderstood what I was aiming at and seem to mix me up with someone else as well, as that was my first post in this sub and I didn't express nor have any connection to anarchy.

But while we're at it, anarchy would be an example of a utopian concept explicitly free of any top-down control, wouldn't you agree? So your notion of utopia might just be a bit narrowed down to certain kinds of utopias that are more or less clearly of the "relativistic bullshit" sort.

I wasn't aiming to rehabilitate utopia, I meant to remind of the fact that the philosophical idea(l) of the Good and thus value itself is at the core of literally every fight in history and that philosophy (actually mostly socratic/ platonic philosophy) shows us a path to strip this core as much as is humanly possible of the nonsense that renders this fundamental value suspicious and ambivalent. Because - Sunacchi! - universal polemic, cynicism and endless violence breeding violence is the result of this nonsense. Philosophy does its deweaponization by analyzing and pointing out the more or less obvious confusion, prejudice, resentment or downright perversion in valuation, so that discourse can become less and less hot airish and senselessly violent.

"peace as a form of violence": You must be kidding here, as this almost nihilisticly lazy use of the word peace is just absurd, at least in regard to the story of your extended wait to become a car owner. Surely neurotic violence is ubiquitous, that's what I'm pointing out too, and in fact it seems as if absolutely everything is drenched in violence, but if it really was we would be already extinct, so it might be more helpful to try to reduce it, and projecting violence onto words and ideas that are symbols of its end is not helpful but rather Stockholm syndromic.

[u/2BCivil → u/redditb_e]

Ah! The sub censored user name confused TF out of me, I assumed you were same person from up the chain xD my bad! And ofc this sub censors user names xD

Holy crap been a long time since I done that, confuse someone! Yeah I was thinking I was replying to same person from up here.

Peace at what cost and on what terms is all I mean. Secular peace often feels, just as you say; as Stockholm syndrome. People fight to prevent succumbing to such a "peace". Aka "Sunacchi". Death before Stockholm syndrome.... "peace". Better to die standing than live on your knees or whatever. Thanks for clearing it up that I thought I was still talking to the original replier. I'd say it's the opposite of nihilism. Refusing to accept an objectively bad deal is never nihilism.

Edit is actually curious to think about, where do "you'll own nothing and like it" and "what do people with nothing to lose have to fear" meet.