What will the feminist future be like?

What will the feminist future be like?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/rkMshhyIpiA
youtube.com/watch?v=qiq-PREk2IE
anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca215
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Damn those are some nice titties.

Feminist societies only exist in the intermediate between a weak society and either
a) A resurgence of masculine values in a society
Or
b) A conquering of the weaker, feminine society by a dominant, masculine one.

I hope that answers your question, OP.

reminder that death by snu snu is absolutely patrician taste

You're in one now and it's a living hell.

Artificial wombs and sexbots will replace women and make them obsolete.

i read this in his voice

sauce on game

Hopefully with hot female combat troops dressed like this.

Which will result in hot guro.

The next wave of feminist is going to be the robots you'll fuck in the future.

sorry but we completely destroyed any chance of a feminist future

> my knowledge of esoteric porn categories continues to grow unabated
I want off this ride.

please post more muscular army waifus

We've almost hit peak feminism
Literally all that's left is mandatory 50/50 hiring quotas for every career field (except the careers that women don't like) and the outlawing of fatherhood.

Not really muscular, but same artist.

You know those early 80s dystopia scifi movies like Escape from New York? Like that but with more youtu.be/rkMshhyIpiA

I need muscles, now denbro.

Hopeful like that.

>tfw will never be a sex slave

Sorry pirate-san, don't have any muscular solder girls right now.

sauce

thanks anyway

Cancer.

Gender is a spook.

Feminists are spooked.

Stop being spooked.

Take a walk at around the nearest black neighborhood...if you dare.

Feminism is doomed to collapse under its own weight, figuratively and is some cases literally. Any ideology that undermines the people who support and maintain it while promoting acceptance of an ideology that wants to destroy it is doomed to fail.

>Who knows? The current feminism goal are so unstable and pointless that even them actually don't know what they want

the feminist conspiracy has been transgenderism and always has been. fortunately it is a rich persons vice and will never catch on to the rest of humanity despite them desperately trying to make it so. only expensive clones can pass as trans.

This.
The only form of Feminism that works is anarcha-Feminism. Radical Feminism alienates one half of the voting base. Liberal Feminism tries to liberate women in a statist society. Egalitarian Feminism is just straight up totalitarianism.

Yay.

No, it isn't. In fact, there are whole strands of Feminism that are against transsexuals. See Trans-Exclusionary Radial Feminism.

I'd be fine with this

Women can't even make things work when they have the power and authority of a state at their command. Why on Earth would you think that they would be capable of managing the free market?

i know those are lower forms of feminism in order to push the major one

Sauce on this tho?

I'm an anarchist, juggling between individualist anarchism and libertarian socialism. In these systems, nobody would manage the market, assuming there was one in the first place (certain strands of socialist anarchism do allow for markets btw, e.g. mutualism).

Not really. There is no major one...unless you're referring to egalitarian Feminism, which is what seems to be in the popular culture these days. The thing is, a lot of Feminists don't like trannies because they feel like they're continuing gender norms.

Asking the important questions.

I'd like to add, the only real strand of Feminism pushing transtrender rhetoric is liberal Feminism.

Ripe for the picking by a stronger society

>You was

The feminist future will be full of beautiful black bodies, and we will finally achieve true harmony and peace

Wtf I never knew this was my fetish

>Muslim
Get out.

Obviously, I was not speaking about markets as a whole, but rather individual corporations. The number of female CEOs is staggeringly small.

>libertarian socialism
Please explain to me this oxymoron.

It will turn either into chinese communist feminism or it will turn back into 1980's feminism.

succ bitte

those are just there in order to slowly indoctrinate the masses. watch in about a decade or so you'll see. maybe even sooner.

my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long
my dick is a thousand feet long
ur dick is one foot long

Like this

>Obviously, I was not speaking about markets as a whole, but rather individual corporations. The number of female CEOs is staggeringly small.

No single person would manage corporations, either because these corporations would be managed through non-hierarchical means. These organizations would be managed by workers communes through direct consensus democracy. There would be no CEOs.

>>libertarian socialism
>Please explain to me this oxymoron.
TL;DR: Liberty is equality of power. The goal of libertarian socialism is to create a society based on voluntary associations in which everyone has the same amount of power, such that nobody can dominate the other and cooperation is greatly encouraged. In such a system, the means of production would be managed through, once again, direct consensus democracy by workers communes.

It's all very complex, and there are many different formulations thereof (I cannot agree upon which formulation I like most). If you'd like an example of one of these systems: youtube.com/watch?v=qiq-PREk2IE

My prediction is that the various strands of Feminism will collide with each other and nobody will be able to agree on what to do, what rhetoric to agree upon, and as a result we will face a crisis.

>feminist future
>feminist
>future

...

What is even the point of such a system other than to placate morons who don't understand the value of administrative labor? It seems completely inefficient.

...

hello where is the dong

Somebody needs more PROTEIN in their internet diet

Sorry lad. I found it on 4chin.

>being this new
Wew

SAUCE PLEASE

The point is to eliminate unjust social hierarchy, and to end exploitation of the workers. The base of a superstructure should have the control of that superstructure, but that's obviously not what we see.

So again, to placate morons who don't understand the value of administrative labor and who make everything all about them. Got it.

Non existant.

In this system, they would be doing the administration, so...
>to placate morons who don't understand the value of administrative labor
hardly.

This.

The cunts will reap what they have sown.

The feminist present ain't gonna last much longer

Which means, either the west is going to learn to appreciate their men again, or we'll be overrun by Islamists.

Rip.
Lol, yeah, fuck Islam, naturally.

Organized religion is [b]spooky[/b]

Rape. Lots of rape. Everybody is raped. Some are raped over and over again.

This.

We could always try to dismantle organized religion in the Middle East.

>feminism
>building a future

Nothing like your pic. Feminists are overwhelmingly subs.

No, that's exactly what this is. If they had such understanding, they would be perfectly fine with having middle managers and CEOs. What makes a group collective of laborers better at making business decisions than a single person with education and experience in doing so? Nothing, but leftist idiots want it this way because they're mad that their boss makes more money than them. And that's because they're too stupid to understand what their boss's work entails, because they feel a sense of entitlement for things they haven't earned, and because they think that jobs magically come from nowhere and don't understand that the only reason that their friend is now employed is because their boss made an expansion investment precisely because their boss had the wealth to do so.

>tfw muzzie in the west
only a bright future either way

Most girls are ugly so exchange for some ugly girl and some bugmen. I think bugmen will be like praying mantis victims to other ethnicities

Okay, this may be a bit of an appeal to nature, but I have a hard time believing artificial wombs will actually be a solution, in the sense that natural pregnancy involves a huge number of factors that would be difficult or impossible to replicate artificially. It would be much easier, actually, to change society back to where women understand how necessary they are in the traditional roles they naturally fit in.

Imagine a stiletto stamping on a male's face—forever.

And remember that it is for ever. The face will always be there to be stamped upon. The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. Everything that you have undergone since you have been in our hands—all that will continue, and worse. The espionage, the betrayals, the arrests, the tortures, the executions, the disappearances will never cease. It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. The more the Woman is powerful, the less she will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism.

Honestly, if feminism made Western Women into high-libido ultra-sexualized aspiring doms, it really wouldn't be that bad. In fact, since masculinity wouldn't really be damaged (except for among betas who could be successfully dominated), I can't really object to it except that it would probably result in a fairly high number of emotionally deficient children.

I just don't see how you can decentralize logistics administration and not see a total clusterfuck of inefficiently leveraged or outright unused materials and labor. It's inefficient enough as it is, and the communists tried a lighter version of what you're suggesting and it was a shitshow. This kind of thing would only work if humans were ultra-rational machines that did not make mistakes and all thought the same way, but humans aren't that way at all. It's frankly a somewhat anti-human philosophy, even though it's trying to improve humanity's lot. It's just not pragmatic enough to actually help humans

It instead made them into high-libido ultra-sexualized aspiring subs that create homes with emotionally deficit children. The only difference is the fetish. Reminder that women hate responsibility.

Yeah, imagine the "stronk independent black woman who don't need no man" ethos expanded to all women. Imagine no father figures any child. There would be a lot of messed up young boys, who would probably resort to violence and antisocial behavior, the way so many black boys do.

Okay, this is complete and utter bs from a moron who obviously hasn't read any books. This is directly against people "making it all about themselves". The bourgeoisie structure their systems so that, even though the base of their corporation does all of the work necessary to keep their corporation afloat, they still get minimal pay and terrible working conditions.

>What makes a group collective of laborers better at making business decisions than a single person with education and experience in doing so?
Not expecting there to be decent education in such a system when decent education is one of the reasons people would like such a system in the first place.

>It's inefficient enough as it is, and the communists tried a lighter version of what you're suggesting and it was a shitshow.

If you mean Marxists? Yes, it was a shit-show because it was state capitalism. The means of production was owned by the state, not by the workers.

Yes, it would be inefficient at times, which is why, as Libertarian Socialist Rants suggested, we'd probably have things thrown in to make it faster, including note takers.

>This kind of thing would only work if humans were ultra-rational machines that did not make mistakes and all thought the same way

The same statement could be applied to capitalism. Why should one irrational machine rule over all the others?

don't tell me its just a vid and theres no game

>The same statement could be applied to capitalism.

It can, but capitalism is more efficient than what you suggest. Ergo, it is the superior system.

>Why should one irrational machine rule over all the others?
Because that is human nature, and it is anti-human to try and change this. Instead you must mitigate it.

>including note takers.
You'll have to elucidate to me how a note-taker is going to help speed things along when the global economy and its assets at this point is valued in the quadrillions of usd. the scale of the economy and the logistics required to keep it running defies comprehension.

we're beyond the point of idealism. At this point we're just trying to keep the ship running, because the consequence of failure is mass starvation.

At the same time, there are a lot of factors which we can control better with artificial wombs. A pregnant woman can get exhausted, get sick, get wounded, she can be poisoned, fall unconscious, she can eat too little or too much, she can fall or receive blows or compress her stomach, the baby can create medical conditions in the woman or get tangled in his umbilical cord. Artificial wombs have a lot of challenges to overcome but at the same time it eliminates many dangerous variables.

Something like this.

>It can, but capitalism is more efficient than what you suggest. Ergo, it is the superior system.

>Implying a system that wastes enough food and money to end poverty four times over is efficient.

>Because that is human nature, and it is anti-human to try and change this. Instead you must mitigate it.
anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca215

>You'll have to elucidate to me how a note-taker is going to help speed things along when the global economy and its assets at this point is valued in the quadrillions of usd. the scale of the economy and the logistics required to keep it running defies comprehension.

>implying a global economy would exist on a large enough scale to be of much relevance

...

>Implying a system that wastes enough food and money to end poverty four times over is efficient.

End poverty where? You have to physically try to starve to death in developed nations, there is ample food and housing available. Capitalism may not distribute resources and labor with absolute 100% efficiency, but no system can, and no system as of yet has shown that it can come close to what Capitalism has achieved in practice.

>implying a global economy would exist on a large enough scale to be of much relevance

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The economy right now is quite large, and attempting to implement what you suggest on any scale approaching the nation-state would cause huge problems.

>anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca215

I'm not going there so you might as well just argue the point yourself, if you care to. Humans naturally sort themselves into hierarchies. You and I may not like it, but if we look at human nature in general, you'll see that by far most individuals have no qualms about living within the power structure established for them by others, and in fact prefer it. No amount of philosophy is going to change what the masses fundamentally desire.

Damn, you've swallowed much more Kool-aid than I thought. First time out of commie generals?

>This is directly against people "making it all about themselves".
I just explained how it was with the last sentence of my last post, you dumb nigger. If wealth equality is enforced (as such a system would necessarily demand), then it's very unlikely that any one member would end up with enough money to invest and create more jobs

>The bourgeoisie structure their systems so that, even though the base of their corporation does all of the work necessary to keep their corporation afloat
Here you prove that you yourself have no conception of the value of administrative labor. But do go on and tell me how your average forklift operator or shelf stocker knows anything about advertising strategies, predicting market trends, accounting, supply chain management, etc.

>when decent education is one of the reasons people would like such a system in the first place
Yeah, education in leftist-dominated social science, maybe. I hardly see any business or finance majors advocating for their own businesses to be taken over by the illiterate Mexicans they employ to do the hard labor.

Please, do tell me when you're ready to argue for real instead of regurgitate braindead liberal talking points.

>You was defeated
HOL UP

>First time out of commie generals?
Actually, no; I used be be National Socialist.

Tbh Sup Forums is incredibly normie. I migrated away from Sup Forums to /mlpol/ during the great merge. Before then, I had been browsing Sup Forums daily since I was ten years old. If anything, this is the first time I've stepped out of right-wing generals.

I would suck her dick
>She's into blood
... Of course she is. Liberals love AIDS.

>Going from nationalism to retarded, self defeating Ancom
KEK How many weeds did you take? You smoking beers bro?

>Anarchists hate tyrannical governments
>Communists love tyrannical governments
>I know, let's team up :D
>I promise, I totally won't kill you, if our side wins ;^)

...

Don't you know?

>ancom

I'm not even decided on what flavor of anarchism I'm of. If you read what I said, you'd know that.

>Communists love tyrannical governments
You mean Marxists?

Bakuninites hate them. Marxists believe in order to destroy capitalism, you must use the state. Bakuninites believe that statism is a major component of capitalism, so you must get rid of the state and capitalism simultaneously. I am a Bakuninite.

There are two definitions for communism, the systemic definition and the philosophical definition. The systemic definition of communism: a stateless, classless, moneyless system in which the means of production is owned by the working class. The philosophical definition of communism: a slew of ideologies dedicated to establishing a communist system.

Anarchocommunism is not an oxymoron, it's one of these communist philosophies, but it's of a Bakuninite flavor. Marxism however is one of these communist philosophies that believes in using the state to achieve socialism. What we got out of Marxist philosophy was state capitalism, and those are the totalitarian communists you're speaking of.

>You was defeated

That's lewd, user.

...

Ouch.