i dont know many terfs (unless we consider who logiko considers terfs, then suddenly most women i know are terfs. . .) , but how are they going far beyond that?

Generally offensive, or even advocating for them to not get any opportunity of medical transition or being legally recognized as a different gender?
There are links between TERFs and very conservative movement. TERFs are not "lefty but trans people are they sex".

Sometimes they'll even go into grooming conspiracy theories. There are plenty of things like that. I don't have all the links ready to answer that like Logiko. Their activists have sometimes links with nazi groups too apprently.

It's true that TERFs are not rare. But there is a difference between just stating that trans men are not real men and going with all the bullshit about gender therapy, grooming theories, denying that nazis killed trans-people and so on.
 
Guys, I have finished a video game run today. I haven't played games since 2018. I replayed my very first (and favorite) RPG: G2 NOTR. I didn't even install patches for a vintage experience. What a magical moment this was. I even found new shit and achieved the highest level I ever achieved( 51). I swear. If you have never played this game, you are missing out. G2 Gold>>>touching grass or debating C4N. You guys need to give it a try. I think this game does exploration, immersion, and balancing way better than The Witcher 3. This game is special. A truly underrated masterpiece.
 
Last edited:
I feel like TERFs are out of hands. At first I had thought that they just meant that trans men/women people aren't really men/women because only sex matters to them but the movement often goes far beyond that and makes alliances with very bad mofos and the dumbest ideas.

If we look around us, we'll see plenty of TERFs especially among the elderly. But these old people aren't even specifically conservatives or what.
Yeah. That what I tried to speak about it here:

Ok. I'm glad.
I need to explain some context first (Be ready, it's a biggy):

There are multiple (big and nuanced) ways to see feminism as far as I understand it from right to left. I'll give you an overview to take you deeper and deeper into materialist thinking (it's important to understand my point):

> The fascist vision : Where feminism should basically not exist and women rights are considered a danger. Simple.

> The reactionnary vision : Where feminism is considered from the point of view of men and only incorporates basic social education values. This vision considers that feminists have won and women are now equal to men. They will counter any type of rhetoric that explains that women need more rights or that women are living in oppression. . (they will also attack women right massively on many aspect > Abortion for ex.)

> The Radfem vision (highly reactionnary also) : This is a more radical vision of the reactionary vision that does acknowledge that men are indeed oppressing women in some aspects, not all. Despite advocating for the right of all women.. This is an approach that has major patriarchal biases and considers everything from the point of view of Cis normativity (they reject gender identities). These feminists (in large majority women) will be as hard with their targets as hardcore radical liberal feminist (I'll explain after). We call these women "Radfem" for "radical feminists". They are very easy to recognize as these persons will advocate for major bans on trans people (especially women) and completely focus their entire narrative on them, denying their identities or their rights. JK Rowling is the most famous radfem in the world. Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern are the most famous radfem in France.

Usually, radfems are former radical liberal feminists who got radicalized because of big racist biases and biases on gender identities. Mila, for example in France, was a simple radical liberal feminist tiktoker. But her atheism and her whiteness made her say crazy stuff on Islam and Muslims. She was hooked by the far right and was slowly radicalized toward fascist ideas (she is now hanging out with neo-Nazis). Radfems will usually end up following the same path toward radical fascist ideas. Even more than simple conservative who think women are men are now equal.

> The Liberal vision : This is the basic stage of society. This is the "girl power" in movies, the representations pushed in stories and the "we must help women achieve success too" of politics. This vision is the most depoliticized. It's the lack of understanding of the existence of patriarchy, but a certain form of awareness that ... "hey! Those women, we should give them more place.. am I right fellows ?" It's the vision that adopts capitalism in the western world and that media will usually push. It's the idea that there are indeed problems of discrimination, but nothing really systemic.

> The radical liberal vision : This is the start of leftism feminism. Usually radical feminists are people who were made aware (often recently) of the oppression that women are facing. They understand clearly that there is a big problem and their response will start to get punchy. With call outs and other stuff (which is a good thing) . But the problem with this vision is that it is STILL a liberal vision. As such the problem of patriarchy is assimilated in a liberal and idealist way and not in a materialistic one. This vision will therefore completely miss the fact that patriarchy is a system of domination and completely individualize every aspect of the responsabilities of men. This is mostly why you will start to hear the terms "deconstruction" in this part of feminism and why you will see women advocating for men to "deconstruct" themselves. And.. sadly, this is where you will also find the profem who are usually men who will advocate for feminism but through their own deconstruction and will NEVER consider their own place in the system of domination that is patriarchy thus potentially continuing to reproduce patriarchal forms of abuse. Patriarchy is considered here as an exclusive byproduct of bad behaviors.

The liberal radical vision has a particularity that it is where most valid and cis progressive white people in the west will end up. Simply because their material condition of existence will not push them to seek more radical forms of struggles. (In France, most mainstream depoliticized influencers - aside from political ones - are liberal feminists and women - the women of Zevent for ex - are often leaning toward the radical side of liberal feminism, with some exception)> it's starting to shift a little.

> The materialistic vision of feminism : Now, this is where it gets interesting. This vision of feminism is as hardcore as the radical liberal vision BUT it approaches feminism through the marxist and materialistic lenses. Patriarchy is not considered a byproduct of bad behaviors anymore, but a product of a domination and exploitation system of men over women. The two key words here are "domination" and "exploitation". This means that patriarchy is a means of complete domination of men over women. This allows feminists and their allies to completely rethink the place of women through the production chain.

With this system, fighting patriarchy will not be done through deconstructions and depoliticized behaviors, but through the complete restructuring or destruction and reconstruction of institutions and systems. It is also the idea that we all participate in the chain of patriarchy and we ALL are benefiting from it, it does not de-responsibilize us, but it gives us more tools to fight the domination system that is capitalism.

Often, Marxists and materialists will consider feminism as a part of the capitalistic oppression. (most class-first people will consider feminism through the angle of capitalism)

> The materialist vision of intersectionnality: This is where I stand. It's basically an extension of the materialistic vision of feminism but this time with the added vision of intersectionality. But not the liberal vision where oppressions are considered as layers on people, but as changing matrices that will be different from context to context depending on the oppression that people are facing.

In this vision, patriarchy (and other systems of oppression like Racism or Ableism) are considered as separate systems of domination from capitalism (systems that do not necessarily need capitalism to exist). As such, feminism is not really considered a distinct fight either, BUT this time feminism is considered as PART of a common fight with many other fights (like mine with ableism or antiracism or anticolonialism etc.).

This vision considers that Capitalism is distinct from many systems, BUT ALL systems coexist and help each other to survive. (for example, capitalism and ableism will form Eugenism and productivity will be normalized to reject handicapped and psychiatrized people.)

This is, I think, the best way to view feminism. It's the one that takes all researches and activism into account and really works the best with other struggles.

(Of course there are nuances in between and even strange exceptions. This is just a "Big picture")

---------------------------

Ok.

Now that I've explained everything about feminism, you should understand that it is possible to connect different systems of domination and explain how they operate.

Well let's talk about pedophilia first.

Now that I've explained everything about feminism, you should understand that it is possible to link different systems of domination together and explain how they work.

Psychiatry, for the most radical materialists - those who usually face, like me, its impacts - is an institution of oppression. I won't go too deep into this because it would require the explanation of the movement that is anti-psychiatry, but in short, WE consider psychiatry as a tool of capitalism and ableism combined. For us (without much detail), this institution is a tool to marginalize unproductive members of society and a tool to push people back into the production. ("we will heal you so you can go back to work")

It is important to understand the origin of Psychiatry and the fact that its scientificity is questionned (I will let you check that, I'am not knowledgable enough for that. Have fun lol). Psychiatry, but also psychology and psychoanalysis, are liberal responses to mental struggles. As such… Just like liberal feminists, they INDIVIDUALIZE the problem.

For liberals, mental struggles are "a problem with mental health", therefore, it is a problem that must be solved by working directly on the person itself.

But in reality, WE know that MOST mental struggles are responses to highly detrimental material conditions of existence. For exemple, If you lose your job, you have more chances to start a "depression." When you are trans, you will most likely experience "gender dysphoria," which is not something natural but a socially constructed phenomenon (trans people have gender dysphoria not because they are trans but because they were educated, raised, and gendered in their opposite gender identity, it is a form of harm created by their social circle and social construction).

Careful tho :

It is important here to understand that antipsychiatry does not consider that conditions like schizophrenia do not exist, but we consider that those conditions are a result of material consequences of trauma and other stuff like that.

The problem to tackle is therefore not schizophrenia, but what causes people to develop it. We do not individualize problems, we think in terms of systems and structural issues. We refuse the psychiatrized look on the problem.

For that reason, antipsychiatry is NOT advocating for the absence of treatment or medication, but it will advocate strongly for a peer-helping solidarity network around the person. Not through the help of psychiatry, as people who can't come back to production and will be considered by the institution as "too harmful for themselves or others" will most likely be sent to psychiatric institutions. >> BAD STUFF HAPPENS THERE.

---

And... Pedophilia is not different. For psychiatry, pedophilia is considered as an illness to treat and by liberal feminism as an illness and condition to eradicate.

BUT IT'S NOT AN ILLNESS NOR A INATE MENTAL CONDITION

Although it does not have the same social status as other psychiatrized conditions because people who are considered pedophiles can hurt physically children and women in general. They are… - like most other psychiatrized people - products of systems of domination and their concrete consequences.

In reality Pedophilia is not a problem that concerns psychiatry but patriarchy. Pedophilia is the same form of domination that men impose on women, but this time on children.

Pedophilia is a form of masculine and patriarcal domination. I repeat those words but they are very important to understand. It's a form of domination that imposes the domination through the infantilization of women and by contrast the objectification of girls AND boys, because yea.. the objectification of males bodies IS - like I've repeated many time on this sensitive section - a symptom of patriarchy. This is why most convicted pedophile are men, and not women (even if they still exist). Pedophilia is a simple way to assert a domination and control over others.

But it is also linked to patriarchy in the sense that it completely denies one simple thing : consent.

The absence of consideration of consent, is the ultimate tool of domination of men over women and also of men over men. It's control. And in society, this problem is systemically spreaded.

This is why I facepalm most of the time when I see people here talking about the age of maturity. Because the problem has never been majority, the problem is the absence of the consideration that consent CAN'T be established when there is a relationship of domination between two person:

- This means relationships between children and adults should never happen
- This means relationships between adults with major age gaps should ALSO never happen
- This is also why grooming (adults or children) is a problem with celebrities or why it is a problem for a teacher to date a studient (event a major one)

The same way some people rape others for control, some people will choose to objectify younger and younger women and boys and even rape them ALSO for pure patriarchal control.

At the end of the day, the term pedophilia was created by the capitalist, ableist and patriarcal system as a way to de-responsibilize people who simply use the same domination on children as on other women. Because children, much like other adults, are ALSO victims of domination systems.

But they are also under a form of oppression that actually NO ONE talks about : the domination of adults over children.

If we hurt a child to teach them a lesson > It's a form of imposition of domination
If we prevent a child from being themselves > It's a form of imposition of domination
If we force our values and thinking patterns through microaggressions and mental correction > It's a form of imposition of domination

Children are among the most ignored social groups on the planet.

---

Now.. you should be understanding how Pedophilia is actually not an illness but a product of patriarchy. And we can now takle its relationship with CAPITALISM.

-----------------------------------------------

"The Epstein files" : When patriarchy and capitalism are synchronized and completely out of control

This one will be very easy to understand if you managed to follow the two previous explanations. It's simply the extension.

Capitalism, just like Patriarchy, is a major system of domination. It's the system that produces the exploitation of people and pushes people who are born with the right capitals (economic, social, and cultural) into positions of power, sometimes to an unthinkable degree.

In the US, capitalism has very little to no shackles (unlike France), as such, billionaires there have the power to impact elections and circles of power very effectively. This means that people like Trump, who are horrible people, can simply rise to power with the help of their economic capital and prevent themselves from being attacked by the system.


----
So.....What do you think happens when those types of people are also raised with an HORRIBLE patriarcal vision?
----


Well… The Epstein files happened. A circle of like-minded billionaires and powerful people who do horrible things to children. Not because of some illness or mental condition inside of them… but… because…

THEY CAN.
AND THEY NEED TO ASSERT THEIR DOMINATION.


Both for themselves and their social circle. It's sadly very simple…

And the only way to stop that from happening is to change or destroy the capitalist and patriarchal systems.

----------

No joke, this might be one of my best post to date. I'm proud of it. I'm usually not that efficient. I really hope you read it carefully.

What I know from TERFism is that they are often former progressive liberal women who radicalized rapidely without taking care of their reactionnary biases. They end up promoting the hatred of trans and non binary people, but also racist, eugenist and even fascist ideas.

I've had a skermish with some of them.. They will not hesitate in using ALL the leftists tools they know to attack your rethoric.

You can also call them radfem.


You also need "broad" definitions to do some comparative historical analysis, you know, as political scienstists also do.
You need to know the usage to adjust their. Not use them as such.

For example, if you want to talk about how racism was treated since the 2000', you could explain how the broader and simpler version of racism had a massive impact then you might contrast that with an analysis of what racism really is from the pov of the research.


Scholarship isnt about pretending that only one definition exists. It means being explicit about which definition you’re using and why. In this case, to make a structural comparison between the practices of the ottoman empire that perfectly align with colonialism.
That's fair. But you can hardly be relevant to talk about racism and colonialism and use basic definition. That's what pseudoscientist do on TV sets. Researchers and other political scholar usually push the limits a little bit further. Here, our goal is to have relevant discussions and push the boundary.

At least that's mine. If I wanna politicize this thread and forum, this is the only way. We need to get out of the confort zone of the broad definitions.

Postcolonial theory is one lens that is valid, for sure. But structural imperial analysis is another. Your insistence on one of those, treating it basically as "science" itself, while refusing to recognize the plurality of the term we are discussing in different historical contexts is theoretical gatekeeping and, highkey anti-scientific.
Now.. that's the type of discussions that I wish we could have on a daily basis. Yes. Maybe I have a bias in one way or another but it can only be discussed through the content of the argumentation.

Technically, I'm actually taking both into account in my analysis. There is a form of conflict between Marxism and post-structuralism concerning materialism and I usually choose the middle ground. As such I use both the structural imperialist (marxist) lens and the post-colonial (post-structuralism) one has a tool of guidance.

If you prefer, it's an extended vision of materialism.


And with your hyper precise definition, still, a good chunk of colonial history wouldnt be considered colonialism. So you care about science and what experts say, but at the same time you dont even inconvenient and if you have to move some goalposts.
But what you don't understand is that I'm willing to agree with you...... IF you give me reason to agree.

You can't just tell me "with your definition a lot of history would be considered colonial" without explaining what you are talking about, because the logic mbehind my argumentation precisely negates that. So show me, then we will see. Don't just tell me "well it's not possible".


So basically, you are once again positioning yourself as the physical manifestation of leftism, and that anyone who disagrees with you must be against leftism itself.
:goatasure:

mais cpa possible
 

Uncle Van

Monké Don't Do Taxes
There are links between TERFs and very conservative movement. TERFs are not "lefty but trans people are they sex".

Sometimes they'll even go into grooming conspiracy theories. There are plenty of things like that. I don't have all the links ready to answer that like Logiko. Their activists have sometimes links with nazi groups too apprently.

It's true that TERFs are not rare. But there is a difference between just stating that trans men are not real men and going with all the bullshit about gender therapy, grooming theories, denying that nazis killed trans-people and so on.
Thats because a good chunk of feminist are religious or conservative. Also toss in the "modern" version of hating anything involving men. They will side with conservatives by design since it is them that will go against Trans people or lgbtq+ in general. Leftist and liberals usually side with Trans.

Think of a Muslim getting treated like shit because of "terrorist yadayada", but still voting republican because he could be vehemently anti-gay.
 
@Logiko I feel bad for not having read your essay about feminism because I asked for it :kobeha: I swear I'll do it though. Eventually not now because it's late... Save it somewhere !

Thats because a good chunk of feminist are religious or conservative. Also toss in the "modern" version of hating anything involving men. They will side with conservatives by design since it is them that will go against Trans people or lgbtq+ in general. Leftist and liberals usually side with Trans.

Think of a Muslim getting treated like shit because of "terrorist yadayada", but still voting republican because he could be vehemently anti-gay.
Yeah but it's not just this explanation. For instance sometimes it feels like atheist feminists who were radical lefty in their youth just always lived as if trans-people weren't real. They couldn't believe their eyes that they haven't dealt with that themselves and thought that it just was invented in the 2010s or something like that.
 
@Logiko I feel bad for not having read your essay about feminism because I asked for it :kobeha: I swear I'll do it though. Eventually not now because it's late... Save it somewhere !
Don't worry, I wrote it also for me. It made me structure my thoughts on feminism at the time.

It's one of those thread that I can't really forget. If you need it, just type "Logiko's thread about feminism and patriarchy". I added this title in capital letters lol.
 

Uncle Van

Monké Don't Do Taxes
[
Yeah but it's not just this explanation. For instance sometimes it feels like atheist feminists who were radical lefty in their youth just always lived as if trans-people weren't real. They couldn't believe their eyes that they haven't dealt with that themselves and thought that it just was invented in the 2010s or something like that.
Lots of people didnt know what a Trans person was until 2016. For lots of people, their first experience with Trans people were in comedy movies.

To be very simple, they view Trans people as anti-women and side with the right because they are ones speaking out against it too. Funnily enough, its mostly wealthier white women speaking out against it and holding feminism back in general.
 
There are links between TERFs and very conservative movement. TERFs are not "lefty but trans people are they sex".

Sometimes they'll even go into grooming conspiracy theories. There are plenty of things like that. I don't have all the links ready to answer that like Logiko. Their activists have sometimes links with nazi groups too apprently.

It's true that TERFs are not rare. But there is a difference between just stating that trans men are not real men and going with all the bullshit about gender therapy, grooming theories, denying that nazis killed trans-people and so on.
It is weird how much I see specifically trans men getting shat on even by queer people themselves honestly
 

Uncle Van

Monké Don't Do Taxes

Jew D. Boy

I Can Go Lower
This actually made my eyes widen and jaw drop. Whenever I think I've become permanently indifferent, shit like this pops up lol
There’s just no bottoming out for these ghouls, absolutely no measure they won’t take to attack every marginalized community in the country…honestly, conservatives SHOULD hope that leftists and Antifa don’t gain a bigger foothold in the government, because we’re the only ones who aren’t afraid to give them a taste of their own medicine and call for them to be strung up by their toes :getnappaed:
 
There’s just no bottoming out for these ghouls, absolutely no measure they won’t take to attack every marginalized community in the country…honestly, conservatives SHOULD hope that leftists and Antifa don’t gain a bigger foothold in the government, because we’re the only ones who aren’t afraid to give them a taste of their own medicine and call for them to be strung up by their toes :getnappaed:
I don't know enough about what happened in WWII, but something tells me that you are just a few month away from some actual nasty stuff... Might be the time to think about a backup plan... if you know what I mean
 
Guys, I have finished a video game run today. I haven't played games since 2018. I replayed my very first (and favorite) RPG: G2 NOTR. I didn't even install patches for a vintage experience. What a magical moment this was. I even found new shit and achieved the highest I ever achieved( 51). I swear. If you have never played this game, you are missing out. G2 Gold>>>touching grass or debating C4N. You guys need to give it a try. I think this game does exploration, immersion, and balancing way better than The Witcher 3. This game is special. A truly underrated masterpiece.
What?
 

Jew D. Boy

I Can Go Lower
I don't know enough about what happened in WWII, but something tells me that you are just a few month away from some actual nasty stuff... Might be the time to think about a backup plan... if you know what I mean
My wife and I have been talking about expatriating since 2016, but she always backs down for a variety of reasons…still, if it gets to the point we can safely assume it will, we definitely won’t have a choice. I’m too Jewish to be as close as I am to one of the reddest states in the union with all their disparate white nationalist militias, nahmean? :emohiyo:
 
My wife and I have been talking about expatriating since 2016, but she always backs down for a variety of reasons…still, if it gets to the point we can safely assume it will, we definitely won’t have a choice. I’m too Jewish to be as close as I am to one of the reddest states in the union with all their disparate white nationalist militias, nahmean? :emohiyo:
Oh you are right, I was thinking about the opposite, but I didn't take the fact that you were jewish into account.. Might become really dangerous for you there.

I'm afraid that no place will be safe in the world of tomorrow if these rich moron and their dumb racist followers keep winning... If only there were a way to wake the rightist up..
 

Jew D. Boy

I Can Go Lower
Oh you are right, I was thinking about the opposite, but I didn't take the fact that you were jewish into account.. Might become really dangerous for you there.

I'm afraid that no place will be safe in the world of tomorrow if these rich moron and their dumb racist followers keep winning... If only there were a way to wake the rightist up..
Zero chance that last bit will happen, every MAGAt is irredeemably anti-intellectual and they get scared at the mere thought of pronouns…these are not people who can be reformed, the paranoia and propaganda are on a subliminal level :willight:
[automerge]1765938830[/automerge]
@Logiko Look no further than Ravager - he consistently demonstrates unimaginable delusions of liberal bogeymen while Donnie drains him financially and spiritually; he has been told by nearly everyone in this thread that he should seek help, yet he refuses to believe they’ve got a point; he says the most insane shit on a regular basis and only supports it with dipshit YouTubers who make money off him with all their race-baiting…I don’t see any indication that he wants to engage seriously with people who disagree with his twisted views, and I don’t feel like he even SHOULD see the light at this point, let him sink ever lower into his psychosis :13_Punches:
 
Last edited:
@Logiko Look no further than Ravager - he consistently demonstrates unimaginable delusions of liberal bogeymen while Donnie drains him financially and spiritually; he has been told by nearly everyone in this thread that he should seek help, yet he refuses to believe they’ve got a point; he says the most insane shit on a regular basis and only supports it with dipshit YouTubers who make money off him with all their race-baiting…I don’t see any indication that he wants to engage seriously with people who disagree with his twisted views, and I don’t feel like he even SHOULD see the light at this point, let him sink ever lower into his psychosis
Nah. It's not a question of mental health. That's something they choose to follow. We simply need to find the trigger to wake them up.

What happens with Ravager is no different than everybody else here. It's the certitude. It just happens that Ravagers one is the most dangerous..

If I could learn, there are no reasons they can't, no matter how far they are. The same way I need to find a way to get through the certitude of toxic centrists here, I will find a way to get through him

I just need the right key before I find a new place to crash on

----
 
Last edited:
Top