[2Wycked]

I told somebody on the chatroom that I wanted to read old feminist works to see where feminists get their current madness. Somebody responded, "Why the hell would you waste your time?"



It isn't a waste of time. Any serious thinker in America has combed feminist works, particularly older, key feminist works such as Kate Millet's "Sexual Politics" and Susan Brownmiller's work, "Against Our Will."

Older writers that critiqued feminism from that era referred to just about all key feminist works as radical feminists. The truth is, any feminist who believes that patriarchy is the source of female oppression, they qualify as a radical feminists. Moderate feminists were primarily concerned with legal rights and protections.

Anybody interested in reading these works, reviewing and critiquing them? I just finished the introductions and first chapter of Millet's "Sexual Politics." Lasch in "The Culture Of Narcissism" recognizes this book as one of the key feminist texts. The book's publisher put it in their top 10 of important books in their 100 year roundup.

I think it is extremely important the manosphere goes balls deep and dig right at the rotten, beating heart of feminism. If we can develop men who understand feminism and its theories so well they can slap any assbag feminist down, we can make a difference.

On a side note, this is part of my desire to stop reading current bullshit and start on important works of the '60's and '70's and keep going back.

[Saladin]

This is true. To beat the opponent we must understand them.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-08-2014 04:02 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

I told somebody on the chatroom that I wanted to read old feminist works to see where feminists get their current madness. Somebody responded, "Why the hell would you waste your time?"



It isn't a waste of time. Any serious thinker in America has combed feminist works, particularly older, key feminist works such as Kate Millet's "Sexual Politics" and Susan Brownmiller's work, "Against Our Will."

Older writers that critiqued feminism from that era referred to just about all key feminist works as radical feminists. The truth is, any feminist who believes that patriarchy is the source of female oppression, they qualify as a radical feminists. Moderate feminists were primarily concerned with legal rights and protections.

Anybody interested in reading these works, reviewing and critiquing them? I just finished the introductions and first chapter of Millet's "Sexual Politics." Lasch in "The Culture Of Narcissism" recognizes this book as one of the key feminist texts. The book's publisher put it in their top 10 of important books in their 100 year roundup.

I think it is extremely important the manosphere goes balls deep and dig right at the rotten, beating heart of feminism. If we can develop men who understand feminism and its theories so well they can slap any assbag feminist down, we can make a difference.

On a side note, this is part of my desire to stop reading current bullshit and start on important works of the '60's and '70's and keep going back.

This is a great idea. I read this in college, but didn't pay close attention since at the time I had other priorities.

From what I recall, there are some bold assertions in it that later got handed down as gospel although they are not backed up by science. I think the main one is that rape is a crime of violence and "power," not sex.

Even non-feminists believe this, but the more recent (and suppressed) science does not support this. Here is a link to a researched-based 2000 article called "Why Men Rape" by the New York Academy of Sciences that presents another view -- and was completely ignored by mainstream media:
http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm

[Statsi]

Why not add a book to the rvf book club next month?

[cardguy]

I don't understand rape.

If it is just about sex - then why don't rapists just hire a hooker instead?

Or are rapists guys who have fetish for abusing and violently dominating women?

As such - it is a mixture of the sex and violence which appeals to them?

[Statsi]

Why do guys fight other dudes outside clubs? If they like fighting why don't they just take up boxing?

Some dudes are sociopathic animalistic scum. They don't empathise with their fellow man and don't have enough to lose to care about the consequences. A combination of desire, opportunity, and a lack of fear of the consequences seems likely.

[Faust]

It's certainly an interesting idea. I'd suggest doing it separate from the other book club, as odds are that fewer people are going to be interested in this.

If you want to give it a go, here are my suggestions:

• Pick a book that's available freely online. (A PDF linked off of an obscure website is just fine.) Nobody wants to shell out money to feminists.
• Read a few chapters before you suggest it, so that you know it's suitable. We've gotten burned in the other book club with things that looked completely reasonable on the surface, and turned out to suck. (I don't think any of us made it through Secret History of Justinian).
• Write a set of questions to guide the topic, so we all have something to discuss.
  

I look forward to seeing what you do with this, as it could be very productive.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-08-2014 10:13 AM)Statsi Wrote:  

Why do guys fight other dudes outside clubs? If they like fighting why don't they just take up boxing?

Some dudes are sociopathic animalistic scum. They don't empathise with their fellow man and don't have enough to lose to care about the consequences. A combination of desire, opportunity, and a lack of fear of the consequences seems likely.

I think it's because boxing is a controlled, moderated affair. Street fights are chaos. Some people live for that. Adrenaline junkies.

If you take that a step further and say some men are turned on by it, you move closer to the answer as to why men rape.

It's also important to remember you have to have an erection to perform a "successful" penetrative rape. So the man has to be turned on. That right there brings some element of sex into the equation -- although not the kind of "sex" most men would be willing or even able to have. Slate looked into this a few years ago with surprising results: they pegged the recent drop in rapes to online porn.

[Captain Gh]

(02-08-2014 07:38 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

I don't understand rape.

If it is just about sex - then why don't rapists just hire a hooker instead?

Or are rapists guys who have fetish for abusing and violently dominating women?

As such - it is a mixture of the sex and violence which appeals to them?

That's a great question that I use to have as well. In his book the myth of male power, Warren Farrell goes over that question deeply and mentions that rape is the ultimate expression of powerlessness after murder.

Without resources, you simply cannot get long access to a woman. Without speaking for Mr Farrell, a rapist would not hire a hooker since the hooker would be the "expression" of power and status that he doesn't have. He couldn't deal with that. Sure he would fuck her but he'd feel like 2nd class to her and feel worse after.

Instead such a man prefers to rape because his victim cannot push him off, therefore is a whole lot more powerless than he is. I would suggest everyone to read this book since it is the ultimate rebuttal against Feminism and will make you understand in a different context what we already know as Red pillers.

If you decide to read this book, just don't be too angry at the author. He comes from the right place, but he is an idealist. He would like for women and the government to be peaceful and just be fair to men, but he can't see that this will never happen without a war since screwing men out of their $$ = The benefit of everyone.

[j r]

You'd gain more understanding of feminists from banging them than from reading their books. Logical reasoning and sound arguments are the last things that are going to win over the gender studies crowd.

Most men don't care either. They just want the most hassle-free way to steady pussy.

[Ensam]

Another side benefit is you would have a nice collection of feminist works on your bookshelf for the special young lady in your life to look at while you're bending her over the couch and giving her the business.

[Lucky]

(02-08-2014 07:38 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

I don't understand rape.

If it is just about sex - then why don't rapists just hire a hooker instead?

Or are rapists guys who have fetish for abusing and violently dominating women?

As such - it is a mixture of the sex and violence which appeals to them?

In the words of the great Adam Carolla:

"Rape is not a sexual crime. It is not sexual. Rape is a violent crime...it's a violent crime, where you cum at the end. It's no different than if you robbed a liquor store, pistol whipped the cashier... and then came."

[Sombro]

Reading the literature is a waste of time. The true gist is to understand every women's latent hamster that allows her to believe bullshit literature in the first place.

[Faust]

Quote:

Reading the literature is a waste of time. The true gist is to understand every women's latent hamster that allows her to believe bullshit literature in the first place.

Maybe, but have you ever actually read any of the literature? I haven't. So I can't say for sure whether it's a waste of time or not, and I'm at least willing to give it a go.

[w00t]

Ive read some feminist stuff and it was terrible, the kind of hamster reasoning that makes my brain implode. Dont know why you would want to do this to yourself.

[Virtus]

Im a method man in social space. I dint reaaaaaly care about the why. I only care about the how.