Roosh V Forum

Full Version: black feminism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.




This is the response to the video I'm sure you guys saw of the ghetto hood rat being tased by a mall cop in front of her children.

The important message in the video begins right around the 4 minute mark. He talks about a topic which Roosh's blog touches upon, which is feminism in the black community and how it's basically destroying a lot of black relationships due to women acting like men. He explains very well and clearly that women in the black community feel as though they can beat up men, w/o any repercusion or pain afterwards, and will have the law on their side. White America get ready lol. It's coming.

And a side note, can you imagine trying to game anywhere near this fucking neighborhood? Damn I'm glad I live in Europe
(02-17-2013 12:41 PM)americanInEurope Wrote: [ -> ]



This is the response to the video I'm sure you guys saw of the ghetto hood rat being tased by a mall cop in front of her children.

The important message in the video begins right around the 4 minute mark. He talks about a topic which Roosh's blog touches upon, which is feminism in the black community and how it's basically destroying a lot of black relationships due to women acting like men. He explains very well and clearly that women in the black community feel as though they can beat up men, w/o any repercusion or pain afterwards, and will have the law on their side. White America get ready lol. It's coming.

And a side note, can you imagine trying to game anywhere near this fucking neighborhood? Damn I'm glad I live in Europe

there's an article on return of kings called "how black america is predicting our future". Good read and it aligns with what you're getting at. I just made a comment about this under the "time to start nuking women" thread in the "everything else" forum. Funny timing.
Minority communities are like the canary in the coal mine. If you look at trends in those communities, you will see them happening to segments of the majority in one generation. I remember telling a white friend of mine this years ago, of what changes he could expect to see where he lived a few years before it happened. He didn't believe me at the time, but when I reminded him of it years later he gave me credit for calling it.
Good to see that others here are onto Tommy Sotomayor, he has a lot of strong material. As nek noted, this is a topic I've written on before. I have two great youtube videos that explore this topic quite well.

The first is also from Tommy Sotomayor, and it just details a speech by a black female anti-feminist named Shaharazad Ali. She basically destroys the notion of black feminism (at least, black feminism in the mold of white feminist practice) as a viable thing. Absolutely must-watch, it is a very good listen:





Her signature quote: "The white women's liberation movement, we don't need anything to do with that. We have not been under the control of the black man for over 500 years so what do we have to get liberated from?"

This basically sums up the reason why modern feminism is very much a white woman's construct for white female problems. Definitely watch this whenever you can.

The next is a video from a black female named StatuesqueOne, who describes anti-male attitudes among black women, the kind that may have helped build that whole taser situation Tommy speaks about in the opening post:





This is a very intriguing topic to me.
Athlone, why do you say feminism is a white womans thing?
(02-17-2013 03:15 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote: [ -> ]Her signature quote: "The white women's liberation movement, we don't need anything to do with that. We have not been under the control of the black man for over 500 years so what do we have to get liberated from?"

This is excellent!

(02-17-2013 03:20 PM)houston Wrote: [ -> ]Athlone, why do you say feminism is a white womans thing?

I think I can answer this.

I think a lot of speeches and ideas coming out of American civil rights leaders are very American-centric. Although Shaharazad Ali's quote is brilliant, it does nothing to address the issues women in Africa have with equality and rape. Her comments I'd say fit perfectly into the issues of American blacks but not elsewhere.
(02-17-2013 03:20 PM)houston Wrote: [ -> ]Athlone, why do you say feminism is a white womans thing?

Because it responds to problems that are primarily those of white women. Or, I should say more specifically, western white women.

The core of the feminist movement is its opposition to "traditional gender roles". In essence, feminism began as a movement designed to challenge the notion that a woman's place was in the home and nowhere else. It sought to show that women could be successful outside the home as professionals and thinkers, while also making the case that women could and should have a say on matters that go on outside their kitchens (ex: the right to vote).

The thing is that these problems are, for the most part, white ones, specifically white western ones. Whereas western white women fought during the first and second waves of feminism to carve out roles outside the home, black and native American women had been doing that for centuries.

In Africa, women had long labored outside the home. Whereas European gender roles often restricted women from performing labor crucial to society's sustenance (ex: working in the fields), african women had long had a crucial role in their society's economic sustainability. They, unlike European women, exerted direct influence on the production and transport of food and in other forms of labor.

Native American women (ancestors of the majority of hispanics we know today) were doing the same. It was very common throughout Native America for women to perform all kinds of agricultural and other forms of manual labor in their communities. When you study the "civilizing" missions attempted by Anglo-Americans during the 19th century and read up on things like the Lewis and Clark journals, you'll see that this was a key bone of contention. The fact that Native American women were performing actual labor was considered by white Americans to be evidence of their savagery. Meriwether Lewis thought it ridiculous that Native American women he met were sometimes seen performing acts of "drudgery" he considered improper for women, and took this as a sign that Native cultures did not respect their women.

You would see this emphasized in American Indian "education" policy, whereby Native Americans were forced onto reservations or into boarding schools to be "civilized". This civilization was based on the notion that they would adopt traditional European gender roles-their men would stop hunting and start farming, while their women would stop farming and start sewing.

From a "feminist" perspective, Europeans actually brought Native American women backwards. They were already "liberated"-they did not need white women to tell them how to find this liberation.

Native American and African women also often lived in matrilineal societies. Whereas European women long existed in a society that saw their marriage to a man as essentially a forfeiture of their economic and social independence, African women could maintain much of this due to matrilineal organizations that gave them greater control over family life and their childrens' future.

You see this continued in the new world. Black women in the Americas, like Native Americans before them, spent centuries during and after slavery working outside of what Europeans would consider "traditional gender roles". White western women were often shielded from serious work and protected in the home-these same women would be the ones to kick off the feminist movement and begin asking for more responsibility outside the home. Black women already had this, as did Native American and some South Asian women.

Feminism also called for an end to the patriarchy and the dominance of men over women. As the first video I posted shows, it simply isn't all that easy for black female history to resonate with this. Black men haven't had true dominion over their women for centuries. In Africa, the black man often had polygamy and certainly plenty of authority, but he also often dealt with matrilineal lines of social organization that limited his dominion and influence.

In the new world, the black man was essentially a pack horse. He had no real power to keep his family together (it could be split apart at anytime should an owner choose), and he also had no power to guard the sexuality of his women. He had no status or power relative to the white men who largely took dominion over the sexual capacity of the black female. They kept black women as mistresses or concubines and quite frequently impregnated them with very little opposition. Black men had no real power to stop their wives, sisters or daughters from being used in this way or sold indiscriminately. They had no control over black female mobility or sexuality.

Thus, when white women (whose sexuality was quite firmly restricted by their men) come out and complained about freeing themselves from the "oppressive" control their men had over their sexuality, it becomes difficult for blacks to interpret things in the same way. Black men have not historically controlled black women that way, and they also have not prevented black women from seeking roles outside the home (black men didn't have the money to fund the stay-at-home mom lifestyle so many white women felt "oppressed" by during the mid-century prior to the second wave feminist explosion in the 60's). So how can black women adopt this narrative?

They can't, really. Neither can Native American women or many south asian women.


Also (lest you think this is strictly a white vs. non-white dynamic I'm trying to establish here), many Eastern European white women of today can't adopt the western feminist narrative either because communism also saw them "liberated" from traditional gender roles.

While white women in the UK and USA were busy talking about their oppressive restriction to the home and their desire to do all the things men can do, Soviet women were on the frontlines putting bullets in Nazi heads. Eastern European women were entering male realms of society (serving as combat pilots, combat troops, tank gunners, and also working in factories even after the war) earlier and in greater numbers than women elsewhere.

Thus, when white western feminists started going on and on about the need to be liberated from "traditional gender roles", you could imagine that such calls had less pull in the east. These women had already had a greater taste of liberation than any western women had at that point, and possibly greater than western women have today (how many females do we have serving as frontline combat troops and snipers in the US military?). They simply don't have the same urgent need for that narrative, and many have probably already learned enough about it through experience to know that it has serious pitfalls.

To these and other women (Africans, Native Americans, and some Asians), traditional gender roles might not even seem quite so harmful. Some may even associate less traditional roles with oppression and/or racism (ex: black women could argue that they were forced to work more than white women due to their race and due to the limited earning potential of their men thanks to racism, and that white status as housewives was a sign of privilege). To them, the white western feminist perspective is simply not as easy to understand much less fight for.

Long story short, feminism as we know it today is a middle/upper-class white, western female thing. Its focus on minimizing the value of traditional gender roles is founded on the status those women have historically enjoyed as the most well-protected and privileged women in history, and it is designed largely to serve problems that resonate with that experience. Other women can have "feminisms" of their own, but they would be fundamentally different from the kind of feminism we most commonly see here in the west, especially in the way they treat traditional gender roles.
(02-17-2013 07:48 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-17-2013 03:20 PM)houston Wrote: [ -> ]Athlone, why do you say feminism is a white womans thing?

Because it responds to problems that are primarily those of white women. Or, I should say more specifically, western white women.

The core of the feminist movement is its opposition to "traditional gender roles". In essence, feminism began as a movement designed to challenge the notion that a woman's place was in the home and nowhere else. It sought to show that women could be successful outside the home as professionals and thinkers, while also making the case that women could and should have a say on matters that go on outside their kitchens (ex: the right to vote).

The thing is that these problems are, for the most part, white ones, specifically white western ones. Whereas western white women fought during the first and second waves of feminism to carve out roles outside the home, black and native American women had been doing that for centuries.

In Africa, women had long labored outside the home. Whereas European gender roles often restricted women from performing labor crucial to society's sustenance (ex: working in the fields), african women had long had a crucial role in their society's economic sustainability. They, unlike European women, exerted direct influence on the production and transport of food and in other forms of labor.

Native American women (ancestors of the majority of hispanics we know today) were doing the same. It was very common throughout Native America for women to perform all kinds of agricultural and other forms of manual labor in their communities. When you study the "civilizing" missions attempted by Anglo-Americans during the 19th century and read up on things like the Lewis and Clark journals, you'll see that this was a key bone of contention. The fact that Native American women were performing actual labor was considered by white Americans to be evidence of their savagery. Meriwether Lewis thought it ridiculous that Native American women he met were sometimes seen performing acts of "drudgery" he considered improper for women, and took this as a sign that Native cultures did not respect their women.

You would see this emphasized in American Indian "education" policy, whereby Native Americans were forced onto reservations or into boarding schools to be "civilized". This civilization was based on the notion that they would adopt traditional European gender roles-their men would stop hunting and start farming, while their women would stop farming and start sewing.

From a "feminist" perspective, Europeans actually brought Native American women backwards. They were already "liberated"-they did not need white women to tell them how to find this liberation.

Native American and African women also often lived in matrilineal societies. Whereas European women long existed in a society that saw their marriage to a man as essentially a forfeiture of their economic and social independence, African women could maintain much of this due to matrilineal organizations that gave them greater control over family life and their childrens' future.

You see this continued in the new world. Black women in the Americas, like Native Americans before them, spent centuries during and after slavery working outside of what Europeans would consider "traditional gender roles". White western women were often shielded from serious work and protected in the home-these same women would be the ones to kick off the feminist movement and begin asking for more responsibility outside the home. Black women already had this, as did Native American and some South Asian women.

Feminism also called for an end to the patriarchy and the dominance of men over women. As the first video I posted shows, it simply isn't all that easy for black female history to resonate with this. Black men haven't had true dominion over their women for centuries. In Africa, the black man often had polygamy and certainly plenty of authority, but he also often dealt with matrilineal lines of social organization that limited his dominion and influence.

In the new world, the black man was essentially a pack horse. He had no real power to keep his family together (it could be split apart at anytime should an owner choose), and he also had no power to guard the sexuality of his women. He had no status or power relative to the white men who largely took dominion over the sexual capacity of the black female. They kept black women as mistresses or concubines and quite frequently impregnated them with very little opposition. Black men had no real power to stop their wives, sisters or daughters from being used in this way or sold indiscriminately. They had no control over black female mobility or sexuality.

Thus, when white women (whose sexuality was quite firmly restricted by their men) come out and complained about freeing themselves from the "oppressive" control their men had over their sexuality, it becomes difficult for blacks to interpret things in the same way. Black men have not historically controlled black women that way, and they also have not prevented black women from seeking roles outside the home (black men didn't have the money to fund the stay-at-home mom lifestyle so many white women felt "oppressed" by during the mid-century prior to the second wave feminist explosion in the 60's). So how can black women adopt this narrative?

They can't, really. Neither can Native American women or many south asian women.


Also (lest you think this is strictly a white vs. non-white dynamic I'm trying to establish here), many Eastern European white women of today can't adopt the western feminist narrative either because communism also saw them "liberated" from traditional gender roles.

While white women in the UK and USA were busy talking about their oppressive restriction to the home and their desire to do all the things men can do, Soviet women were on the frontlines putting bullets in Nazi heads. Eastern European women were entering male realms of society (serving as combat pilots, combat troops, tank gunners, and also working in factories even after the war) earlier and in greater numbers than women elsewhere.

Thus, when white western feminists started going on and on about the need to be liberated from "traditional gender roles", you could imagine that such calls had less pull in the east. These women had already had a greater taste of liberation than any western women had at that point, and possibly greater than western women have today (how many females do we have serving as frontline combat troops and snipers in the US military?). They simply don't have the same urgent need for that narrative, and many have probably already learned enough about it through experience to know that it has serious pitfalls.

To these and other women (Africans, Native Americans, and some Asians), traditional gender roles might not even seem quite so harmful. Some may even associate less traditional roles with oppression and/or racism (ex: black women could argue that they were forced to work more than white women due to their race and due to the limited earning potential of their men thanks to racism, and that white status as housewives was a sign of privilege). To them, the white western feminist perspective is simply not as easy to understand much less fight for.

Long story short, feminism as we know it today is a middle/upper-class white, western female thing. Its focus on minimizing the value of traditional gender roles is founded on the status those women have historically enjoyed as the most well-protected and privileged women in history, and it is designed largely to serve problems that resonate with that experience. Other women can have "feminisms" of their own, but they would be fundamentally different from the kind of feminism we most commonly see here in the west, especially in the way they treat traditional gender roles.

This should have been a post for ROK sir, excellent post.
(02-17-2013 08:31 PM)RouteBackwards Wrote: [ -> ]This should have been a post for ROK sir, excellent post.

Some variant of it probably will find its way there down the line. This is a topic I've been planning on writing about for a while, as I consider it very important.
(02-17-2013 07:48 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-17-2013 03:20 PM)houston Wrote: [ -> ]Athlone, why do you say feminism is a white womans thing?

Because it responds to problems that are primarily those of white women. Or, I should say more specifically, western white women.

The core of the feminist movement is its opposition to "traditional gender roles". In essence, feminism began as a movement designed to challenge the notion that a woman's place was in the home and nowhere else. It sought to show that women could be successful outside the home as professionals and thinkers, while also making the case that women could and should have a say on matters that go on outside their kitchens (ex: the right to vote).

The thing is that these problems are, for the most part, white ones, specifically white western ones. Whereas western white women fought during the first and second waves of feminism to carve out roles outside the home, black and native American women had been doing that for centuries.

In Africa, women had long labored outside the home. Whereas European gender roles often restricted women from performing labor crucial to society's sustenance (ex: working in the fields), african women had long had a crucial role in their society's economic sustainability. They, unlike European women, exerted direct influence on the production and transport of food and in other forms of labor.

Native American women (ancestors of the majority of hispanics we know today) were doing the same. It was very common throughout Native America for women to perform all kinds of agricultural and other forms of manual labor in their communities. When you study the "civilizing" missions attempted by Anglo-Americans during the 19th century and read up on things like the Lewis and Clark journals, you'll see that this was a key bone of contention. The fact that Native American women were performing actual labor was considered by white Americans to be evidence of their savagery. Meriwether Lewis thought it ridiculous that Native American women he met were sometimes seen performing acts of "drudgery" he considered improper for women, and took this as a sign that Native cultures did not respect their women.

You would see this emphasized in American Indian "education" policy, whereby Native Americans were forced onto reservations or into boarding schools to be "civilized". This civilization was based on the notion that they would adopt traditional European gender roles-their men would stop hunting and start farming, while their women would stop farming and start sewing.

From a "feminist" perspective, Europeans actually brought Native American women backwards. They were already "liberated"-they did not need white women to tell them how to find this liberation.

Native American and African women also often lived in matrilineal societies. Whereas European women long existed in a society that saw their marriage to a man as essentially a forfeiture of their economic and social independence, African women could maintain much of this due to matrilineal organizations that gave them greater control over family life and their childrens' future.

You see this continued in the new world. Black women in the Americas, like Native Americans before them, spent centuries during and after slavery working outside of what Europeans would consider "traditional gender roles". White western women were often shielded from serious work and protected in the home-these same women would be the ones to kick off the feminist movement and begin asking for more responsibility outside the home. Black women already had this, as did Native American and some South Asian women.

Feminism also called for an end to the patriarchy and the dominance of men over women. As the first video I posted shows, it simply isn't all that easy for black female history to resonate with this. Black men haven't had true dominion over their women for centuries. In Africa, the black man often had polygamy and certainly plenty of authority, but he also often dealt with matrilineal lines of social organization that limited his dominion and influence.

In the new world, the black man was essentially a pack horse. He had no real power to keep his family together (it could be split apart at anytime should an owner choose), and he also had no power to guard the sexuality of his women. He had no status or power relative to the white men who largely took dominion over the sexual capacity of the black female. They kept black women as mistresses or concubines and quite frequently impregnated them with very little opposition. Black men had no real power to stop their wives, sisters or daughters from being used in this way or sold indiscriminately. They had no control over black female mobility or sexuality.

Thus, when white women (whose sexuality was quite firmly restricted by their men) come out and complained about freeing themselves from the "oppressive" control their men had over their sexuality, it becomes difficult for blacks to interpret things in the same way. Black men have not historically controlled black women that way, and they also have not prevented black women from seeking roles outside the home (black men didn't have the money to fund the stay-at-home mom lifestyle so many white women felt "oppressed" by during the mid-century prior to the second wave feminist explosion in the 60's). So how can black women adopt this narrative?

They can't, really. Neither can Native American women or many south asian women.


Also (lest you think this is strictly a white vs. non-white dynamic I'm trying to establish here), many Eastern European white women of today can't adopt the western feminist narrative either because communism also saw them "liberated" from traditional gender roles.

While white women in the UK and USA were busy talking about their oppressive restriction to the home and their desire to do all the things men can do, Soviet women were on the frontlines putting bullets in Nazi heads. Eastern European women were entering male realms of society (serving as combat pilots, combat troops, tank gunners, and also working in factories even after the war) earlier and in greater numbers than women elsewhere.

Thus, when white western feminists started going on and on about the need to be liberated from "traditional gender roles", you could imagine that such calls had less pull in the east. These women had already had a greater taste of liberation than any western women had at that point, and possibly greater than western women have today (how many females do we have serving as frontline combat troops and snipers in the US military?). They simply don't have the same urgent need for that narrative, and many have probably already learned enough about it through experience to know that it has serious pitfalls.

To these and other women (Africans, Native Americans, and some Asians), traditional gender roles might not even seem quite so harmful. Some may even associate less traditional roles with oppression and/or racism (ex: black women could argue that they were forced to work more than white women due to their race and due to the limited earning potential of their men thanks to racism, and that white status as housewives was a sign of privilege). To them, the white western feminist perspective is simply not as easy to understand much less fight for.

Long story short, feminism as we know it today is a middle/upper-class white, western female thing. Its focus on minimizing the value of traditional gender roles is founded on the status those women have historically enjoyed as the most well-protected and privileged women in history, and it is designed largely to serve problems that resonate with that experience. Other women can have "feminisms" of their own, but they would be fundamentally different from the kind of feminism we most commonly see here in the west, especially in the way they treat traditional gender roles.

i've been telling the Hamster Heads this for 20 years now. they weren't listening then, and i'm afraid they won't listen now
Athlone should write a book, his insights into black America, and the world in general, are simply profound. I'm a white Brit, so I obviously cannot relate to quite a fair bit of his stuff...That said, I'd by the book because it would be magnificently well written and would often serve as an accurate prediction of what is coming for white America and Europe too.

I'm not kissing your arse dude, but you're a brilliant social commenter/analysist, and nearly every post you make is often laced with profound truths and poignant observations.

Another reason why the RVF is the best on the web.
(02-17-2013 07:48 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-17-2013 03:20 PM)houston Wrote: [ -> ]Athlone, why do you say feminism is a white womans thing?

Because it responds to problems that are primarily those of white women. Or, I should say more specifically, western white women.

The core of the feminist movement is its opposition to "traditional gender roles". In essence, feminism began as a movement designed to challenge the notion that a woman's place was in the home and nowhere else. It sought to show that women could be successful outside the home as professionals and thinkers, while also making the case that women could and should have a say on matters that go on outside their kitchens (ex: the right to vote).

The thing is that these problems are, for the most part, white ones, specifically white western ones. Whereas western white women fought during the first and second waves of feminism to carve out roles outside the home, black and native American women had been doing that for centuries.

In Africa, women had long labored outside the home. Whereas European gender roles often restricted women from performing labor crucial to society's sustenance (ex: working in the fields), african women had long had a crucial role in their society's economic sustainability. They, unlike European women, exerted direct influence on the production and transport of food and in other forms of labor.

Native American women (ancestors of the majority of hispanics we know today) were doing the same. It was very common throughout Native America for women to perform all kinds of agricultural and other forms of manual labor in their communities. When you study the "civilizing" missions attempted by Anglo-Americans during the 19th century and read up on things like the Lewis and Clark journals, you'll see that this was a key bone of contention. The fact that Native American women were performing actual labor was considered by white Americans to be evidence of their savagery. Meriwether Lewis thought it ridiculous that Native American women he met were sometimes seen performing acts of "drudgery" he considered improper for women, and took this as a sign that Native cultures did not respect their women.

You would see this emphasized in American Indian "education" policy, whereby Native Americans were forced onto reservations or into boarding schools to be "civilized". This civilization was based on the notion that they would adopt traditional European gender roles-their men would stop hunting and start farming, while their women would stop farming and start sewing.

From a "feminist" perspective, Europeans actually brought Native American women backwards. They were already "liberated"-they did not need white women to tell them how to find this liberation.

Native American and African women also often lived in matrilineal societies. Whereas European women long existed in a society that saw their marriage to a man as essentially a forfeiture of their economic and social independence, African women could maintain much of this due to matrilineal organizations that gave them greater control over family life and their childrens' future.

You see this continued in the new world. Black women in the Americas, like Native Americans before them, spent centuries during and after slavery working outside of what Europeans would consider "traditional gender roles". White western women were often shielded from serious work and protected in the home-these same women would be the ones to kick off the feminist movement and begin asking for more responsibility outside the home. Black women already had this, as did Native American and some South Asian women.

Feminism also called for an end to the patriarchy and the dominance of men over women. As the first video I posted shows, it simply isn't all that easy for black female history to resonate with this. Black men haven't had true dominion over their women for centuries. In Africa, the black man often had polygamy and certainly plenty of authority, but he also often dealt with matrilineal lines of social organization that limited his dominion and influence.

In the new world, the black man was essentially a pack horse. He had no real power to keep his family together (it could be split apart at anytime should an owner choose), and he also had no power to guard the sexuality of his women. He had no status or power relative to the white men who largely took dominion over the sexual capacity of the black female. They kept black women as mistresses or concubines and quite frequently impregnated them with very little opposition. Black men had no real power to stop their wives, sisters or daughters from being used in this way or sold indiscriminately. They had no control over black female mobility or sexuality.

Thus, when white women (whose sexuality was quite firmly restricted by their men) come out and complained about freeing themselves from the "oppressive" control their men had over their sexuality, it becomes difficult for blacks to interpret things in the same way. Black men have not historically controlled black women that way, and they also have not prevented black women from seeking roles outside the home (black men didn't have the money to fund the stay-at-home mom lifestyle so many white women felt "oppressed" by during the mid-century prior to the second wave feminist explosion in the 60's). So how can black women adopt this narrative?

They can't, really. Neither can Native American women or many south asian women.


Also (lest you think this is strictly a white vs. non-white dynamic I'm trying to establish here), many Eastern European white women of today can't adopt the western feminist narrative either because communism also saw them "liberated" from traditional gender roles.

While white women in the UK and USA were busy talking about their oppressive restriction to the home and their desire to do all the things men can do, Soviet women were on the frontlines putting bullets in Nazi heads. Eastern European women were entering male realms of society (serving as combat pilots, combat troops, tank gunners, and also working in factories even after the war) earlier and in greater numbers than women elsewhere.

Thus, when white western feminists started going on and on about the need to be liberated from "traditional gender roles", you could imagine that such calls had less pull in the east. These women had already had a greater taste of liberation than any western women had at that point, and possibly greater than western women have today (how many females do we have serving as frontline combat troops and snipers in the US military?). They simply don't have the same urgent need for that narrative, and many have probably already learned enough about it through experience to know that it has serious pitfalls.

To these and other women (Africans, Native Americans, and some Asians), traditional gender roles might not even seem quite so harmful. Some may even associate less traditional roles with oppression and/or racism (ex: black women could argue that they were forced to work more than white women due to their race and due to the limited earning potential of their men thanks to racism, and that white status as housewives was a sign of privilege). To them, the white western feminist perspective is simply not as easy to understand much less fight for.

Long story short, feminism as we know it today is a middle/upper-class white, western female thing. Its focus on minimizing the value of traditional gender roles is founded on the status those women have historically enjoyed as the most well-protected and privileged women in history, and it is designed largely to serve problems that resonate with that experience. Other women can have "feminisms" of their own, but they would be fundamentally different from the kind of feminism we most commonly see here in the west, especially in the way they treat traditional gender roles.


That moment you realize that being a STEM major in college, leaves much to be desired in the liberal arts sector. DAMN CALCULUS CLASSES!!! I could have taking history, or something and not read this post thinking... FucK!.... im being educated right now. Exclamation

Post Of The Day
indeed excellent post Anthlone.
To synopsize, women in Europe got a taste of the realities men faced, and decided it sucked. Black women were never oppressed by their men in any real way. And American women are getting a taste of what men face, and destroying themselves in the process. And I think, and hope, a few are slowly waking up to it.
(02-17-2013 07:48 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-17-2013 03:20 PM)houston Wrote: [ -> ]Athlone, why do you say feminism is a white womans thing?

While white women in the UK and USA were busy talking about their oppressive restriction to the home and their desire to do all the things men can do, Soviet women were on the frontlines putting bullets in Nazi heads. Eastern European women were entering male realms of society (serving as combat pilots, combat troops, tank gunners, and also working in factories even after the war) earlier and in greater numbers than women elsewhere.

the 1077 Anti-Aircraft Regiment,

[Image: tumblr_llgqtduk4c1qzz4n6o1_500.jpg?resize=550%2C364]

Quote:This regiment like many other anti-aircraft regiments in the Soviet Union at the time was made up entirely of young women, some of them not long out of high school. The 1077th is known for their fierce interception of the German 16th Panzer Division. On August 23rd 1942, the German 16th were tasked with destroying the Stalingrad Tractor Factory, which had been refitted to manufacture tanks. The attack came from the northern quarter of the city and as the Soviets were not expecting an attack from this quarter, the 1077th were completely unprotected by infantry. Armed with only thirty seven M1939 Air Defense Guns and facing an onslaught of German tanks, the young women of the 1077th did the only thing they could, improvise and fight. They dropped their anti-aircraft guns to the lowest elevation and fired out across German tanks and submachine-gunners, for two days they fought before finally being overwhelmed by the sheer number of Germans. The Germans, arriving at the positions they had been receiving such intense fire from were shocked to find the bodies of young women. The 1077th were no more but not before destroying 83 tanks, 15 infantry vehicles, killing 3 battalions of infantry and shooting down 14 aircraft. The German’s had yet to know it but the resistance put up by the 1077th would be a sign of things to come.

http://listverse.com/2012/09/17/top-10-f...talingrad/

i can hazzz wun way tikit to Rushia ?
Black chicks use the threat of the government as a way to beat down their men. I feel really sorry for my black brothers. Not only do they get fucked over by the police, they have to put up with those black chicks threatening them with a government sponsored beat down all of the time.
Reference URL's