Log in

View Full Version : Manarchist?



RGacky3
3rd June 2009, 12:09
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=01/11/21/0853184

I came across this a while ago, but its interesting and, in my opinion, mostly rediculous. Case in point.


A) Passive-Aggressive Patriarchy:" (often come across as a
victim/helpless/in
need/dependent and get women in your life to be your physical and
emotional
caretakers?to buy you things? to take care of your responsibilities?
pick up your slack? use guilt or manipulation to get out of your
responsibilities
and equal share of the work? do you treat your female partner like a
"mom" or your secretary?)

B) "Aggressive Patriarchy:" (Do you often take charge? Assume that a
woman can’t do something right so you do it for her? Believe that only
you can take care of things? Think that you always have the right
answer?
Treat your female partner like she’s helpless, fragile, a baby or weak?
Do you put down your partner or minimize her feelings? Do you belittle
her opinions?)


The first on is not "passive aggressive patriarchy" its being a needy and spineless (am I allowed to say "being a pussy"? Considering the discussion on my earlier thread on that type language? Because in the english language that word convays the point a little better.)

The second could very well have to do with the partner, (man or woman) if he/she can't make desicions or is weak minded chances are the other one will either loose intrest or have to take over.

Most people have a little bit of both to varying degrees, men tend to be more of the latter (blame it on society or nature whatever), but that has nothing to do with sexism.


2. How do you react when women in your life name something or someone
as patriarchal or sexist? Do you think of her or call her a "PC Thug,"
"Feminazj," "Thin-skinned," "Overly-Sensitive," a "COINTELPRO-esque"
or "Un-fun?"


It depends on the situation obviously.


5. Do you believe that women have "natural characteristics" which are
Inherent in our sex such as "passive," "sweet," "caring," "nurturing,"
"considerate," "generous," "weak," or "emotional?"

I'm not sure about those, however, men and women have different physical and emotional make ups, so there are inherent differences, and understanding that is'nt sexist.

That does'nt mean that a woman cannot be strong or a man cannot be emotional, but there are still inherent differences.


6. Do you make fun of "typical" men or "frat boys" but not ever check
yourself to see if you behave in the same ways?

What would be wrong with being a "typical man"? Since when is the "typical man" a mysogonist?


7. Do you take on sexism and patriarchy as a personal struggle working
to fight against it in yourself, in your relationships, in society,
work,
culture, subcultures, and institutions?

As far as me personally, if it comes up in the workplace (meaning a qualified woman is discriminated against because she is a woman) or institutions, then I would fight it, I don't take it as a personal struggle for the same reason I don't take liberating the basque area in spain as a personal struggle.

If someone does not actively fight against racism that does'nt make him a racist.


10. Do you think that you define what is radical? Do you suffer from
or contribute to macho bravado" or ‘subpoena envy? (I.e. defining a
true
or "cool" and respectable activist as someone who has: been arrested,
done lockdowns, scaled walls, hung banners, done time for their actions
argued or fought with police, done property alterations, beat up nazi
boneheads, etc.)?

I'm sorry but demonizing "macho bravado" is rediculous, many great revolutionary things have been because of so called "macho bravado", whatever the hell that means, since when has "machismo" (in the sense of encouraging courage, toughness and so on) been something to be demonized)? Also who says that this "macho bravado" is only a male thing, remember Emma Goldman?


12. Are you taking on the "shit" or "grunt" work in your organizing?
(I.e.: Cooking. cleaning. set up, clean up phone calls, email lists,
taking notes, doing support work, sending mailings, providing
childcare?)
Are you aware of the fact. that women often are taking on this work
with
no regard or for their efforts?

13. Do you take active step to make your activist groups safe and
comfortable
places for women?

14. If you are trying to get more women involved in your activist
projects,
do you try to engage them by telling them what’ to do or why they
should
join your group?


replace "woman" with anyone.


15. Do you ever find yourself monitoring and limiting your behavior and
speech in meetings and activist settings because you don't want’ to
take
up too much space or dominate the group? Are you aware of the fact that
women do this all the time?

Really? Why is this only a man thing, do women not try to dominate discussions or activities as well?


17. Do you make jokes or negative comments about the sex lives of women
or sex work?

Yes, I make sex jokes, about women, and about men, and about sex. A joke is a joke.


18. Can you only show affection and be loving to your partner in front
of friends and family or only in private?

That has to do with self-confidence and relationship confidence, that has nothing to do with chauvinism. Maybe the person only shows affectio to his/her "partner" in private, because he does'nt want an open relationship, or becuase he/she just wants that person for sex (nothing wrong with that).


20. Do you repeatedly ask or plead with women for what you want in
sexual
situations? Are you aware that unless this is a mutually consented upon
scenario/game that this is considered a form of coercion?

Men are the only naggers? Any one with a girlfriend or wife knows this not to be true, nagging for sexual things is no worse or better than nagging for other things.


21. During sex, do you pay attention to your partner’s face and body
language to see if she is turned on? Engaged, or just lying there? Do
you ask a woman who she wants during sex? What turns her on?

Who cares, what does that have to do with sexism? If your not a good lover she won't sleep with you again (unless she wants too). People have sex for different reasons, in one situation, lets say your in love, pleasing your partner would be inportant to you, on a one night stand maybe not so much, what does that have to do with sexism?


24. Do you stay with your partner in a relationship for comfort and
security?
Sex? Financial or emotional caretaking? If you’re not completely happy
or "in love" with your partner anymore? Even though you don’t think it
will ultimately work out? Because you’re afraid or unable to be alone?
Do you suddenly end relationships when a "new" or "better" woman comes
along?

Both men and women do this. Also whats wrong with giong for the better woman?

The reasons someone is in a relationship differ and have nothing to do with sexism.


26. Do you cheat on your partners?

is cheating patriachal? :P


27. If your girlfriend gets on your case for patriarchal behavior or
wants to try to work on the issues of patriarchy in your relationship,
do you creak up with her or cheat on her and find another woman who
will
put up with your shit?


The real question is why would you want to be with a woman who's shit you have to put up with? Or who does'nt want to put up with "your shit".


32. Do you talk to your female friends about things you don't talk to
your male friends about especially emotional issues?

What? What does that have to do with anything?


33. Do you constantly fall in love with your female friends Are you
friends
with women until you find out that they are not in love with you too
and then end the friendships? Are you only friends with women who are
in monogamous or committed relationships with other people?

only if your a coward that becomes friends with girls in order to try and make them "love you". Which does'nt make you a sexist.


34. Do you come on to your female friends even jokingly?

Are males the only ones to do this? Sex is sex.


36. Do you find yourself only attracted to "Anarcho-Crusty Punk
Barbie",
Alterna-Grrrl Barbie," or Hardcore-Grrrl Barbie?" (The idea here being
that the only women you arc attracted to fit mainstream beauty
standards
but just dress and do their hair alternatively and maybe have piercings
and tattoos) Do you question and challenge your internalized ideals of
mainstream beauty ideals for women?

This one is incredible. Now not to be an ass, but its interesting that in my experience women who critisize the so called "mainstream beauty standards" are ugly women.

What men are attracted to has nothing to do with sexism or any type of discrimination, its sexaul attraction, and if a man or a woman wants to be attractive to the opposite sex he/she has to deal with the fact that in general certain things are considered more attractive, rather than complaining about the "standards".


38. Are you aware of the fact that ALL WOMEN, even women in radical
communities,
live under the CONSTANT PRESSURE and OPPRESSION of mainstream
patriarchal
beauty standards?

And men are under constant pressure to make money, look good, have a carrear, and so on and so forth.

Its not oppression for men to be attracted to attractive women.


39. Are you aware of the fact that many women in radical communities
have had and are currently dealing with eating disorders?

And?


41. When was the last time you walked into your house, noticed that
something
was misplaced/dirty/etc. AND did something about it (didn’t just walk
by it, over it, away from it or leave a nasty note about it) even if
it wasn’t your chore or responsibility?

42. Are you constantly amazed by the magical "food fairy" who
mysteriously
acquires food, brings it home, puts it away, prepares it in meal form
and then cleans up afterwards?

43. Do you contribute equally to domestic life and work?

44. How many of the following activities do you contribute to in your
home (this is a partal list of what it takes to run a household):
A: Sweep and mop floors and clean carpets
B: Wash and put away dishes
C: Clean stove, countertops, sinks and appliances if they are messy and
each time after you have prepared food
D: Collect money, do food shopping, put away food and make meals for
people you live with
E: Do house laundry (kitchen towels, bathroom hand towels, washable
rugs,
etc.)
F: Clean up common room spaces, even if it’s not your chore
G: Pick up other’s slack
H: Deal with garbage, recycling, and compost
I: Take care of bills, rent, utilities
J: Deal with the landscaping and gardening
K: Clean bathrooms and make sure bathroom is clean after you use it
L: Feed, clean up after, and take care of housepets

If I'm living with a girl and we are both working then sure, of coarse.


48. Do you help make the lives of single mothers in your life and
community
easier by finding out if and how you can assist?

I actually agree with this (not just mothers however), and think its extreamly important and admirable to help out single Parents.


49. Have you politicized your ideas about child rearing and parenthood
radical communities? Do you believe that individuals who are in the
movement
have children or that the movement has children?

Child rearing and parenthood is the last thing that should be politicized.


50. When was the last time you showed a woman how to do a task rather
than doing it for her and assuming she couldn’t do it?

51. When was the last time you asked a woman to show you how to do a
task?

Why? To make her feel good? replace woman with anybody. That has nothing to do with sexism.


53. If a woman discusses with you or calls you out on your patriarchy,
do you make an effort to be emotionally present? Listen? Not
emotionally
shut down? Not get defensive? Think about what she said? Admit you
fucked
up? Take responsibility/make reparations for the mistakes you made?
Discuss
your feelings and ideas with her? Apologize? Work harder on your own
shit to make sure that you don’t make the same mistakes again with her
or other women?

Assuming the woman is correct in the accusation.


54. Do you look inside yourself to find out why you fucked up in these
relationships

WHAT? "Why you fucked up"??? That question assumes its the male making the mistake. Don't be with women that demand you change your behavior, simple as that.


57. Do you physically, psychologically, or emotionally abuse women?


goes both ways.


58. Do the women in your life (mothers, sisters, partners, housemates,
friends, etc.) have to "remind" you or "nag" you or "yell" at you in
order for you to get off your ass and take care of your
responsibilities?

You've got to be kiding me. First of all, how are these so called "responsibilities" not just another form of sexism, as if men have certain innate "responsibilities".


59. Do you talk to other men about patriarchy and your part in it?

I cannot believe the amount of self-hate and guilt this article is promoting, essencially the message is "men are always wrong,, an should appologise for being wrong, and women should be treated as complete equals while at the same time being catered to (oxymoron)."

This type of crap is cheapens not only feminism but also anarchism.

#FF0000
3rd June 2009, 23:35
This one is incredible. Now not to be an ass, but its interesting that in my experience women who critisize the so called "mainstream beauty standards" are ugly women.

I've decided you're an idiot.

Bud Struggle
3rd June 2009, 23:49
I've decided you're an idiot.

No need for that.

Not to be sexest or anything--but some women are definitely better looking than other women.

I wonder how a Communist society would work that out? Wouldn't some women be more "valuable" than other women? Wouldn't some women continue to set the styles and be of more (sexual) interest to men? And for that matter--the same in the other direction.

Glenn Beck
3rd June 2009, 23:50
Not to be sexest or anything--but some women are definitely better looking than other women.

I wonder how a Communist society would work that out? Wouldn't some women be more "valuable" than other women? Wouldn't some women continue to set the styles and be of more (sexual) interest to men?

The party decides who you have sex with, when, and how, tovarisch :cool:

#FF0000
3rd June 2009, 23:52
Not to be sexest or anything--but some women are definitely better looking than other women.

I wonder how a Communist society would work that out? Wouldn't some women be more "valuable" than other women? Wouldn't some women continue to set the styles and be of more (sexual) interest to men?

A communist society wouldn't work it out at all.

Jesus Christ, I expected RGacky to say something utterly and mind-boggling stupid at some point (at least on the subject of abortion or feminism/sexism), but what the fuck is this, Tomk?

#FF0000
3rd June 2009, 23:55
I can't even understand the process involved in making that kind of post. What the fuck would make you think anybody in a communist society would have to manage people and their attraction to others? My god.

Bud Struggle
3rd June 2009, 23:55
A communist society wouldn't work it out at all.

Jesus Christ, I expected RGacky to say something utterly and mind-boggling stupid at some point (at least on the subject of abortion or feminism/sexism), but what the fuck is this, Tomk?

I'm just saying there are things of more value and less value in a nonmonitary society. If your asking about Gack's post--I guess it's some sort of advanced Anarchy.

I'm just a learner. :D

Bud Struggle
4th June 2009, 00:00
I can't even understand the process involved in making that kind of post. What the fuck would make you think anybody in a communist society would have to manage people and their attraction to others? My god.

Hot babes are worth something more than non hot babes. They comand an interest. The question is how could that interest be brokered? There's no question that in ANY society (Communist or otherwise) valuable thing are going to be bought and sold--it's just a matter of how.

Black Market Comes to mind. It's huge in Cuba.

Decolonize The Left
4th June 2009, 00:02
I wonder how a Communist society would work that out? Wouldn't some women be more "valuable" than other women? Wouldn't some women continue to set the styles and be of more (sexual) interest to men? And for that matter--the same in the other direction.

I believe you should apologize for the implied objectification of women in this statement. Here you have reduced a woman's body, and hence herself, to nothing more than 'the value of her appearance.'

Rorschach was justified in objecting to your claims.

- August

#FF0000
4th June 2009, 00:03
I'm just saying there are things of more value and less value in a nonmonitary society. If your asking about Gack's post--I guess it's some sort of advanced Anarchy.

I'm just a learner. :D

Well, first lesson in leftism is this:

Leftism =/= manage everything.

I really don't even understand why you think the issue of some people being more attractive than others is something that socialists would even care about. I think you have the (hopelessly incorrect but very common) idea that socialists are about TOTAL EQUALITY in EVERY FACET OF LIFE.

That isn't what we're about. A socialist society is one where the means of production are controlled and managed by all the workers, without discrimination on basis of race, sex, sexuality...etc. Some people being more attractive than others and other inane bullshit of that sort, are total non-issues, and regardless of politics, nobody with any sort of sense would suggest trying to manage that.

#FF0000
4th June 2009, 00:06
Hot babes are worth something more than non hot babes. They comand an interest. The question is how could that interest be brokered? There's no question that in ANY society (Communist or otherwise) valuable thing are going to be bought and sold--it's just a matter of how.

Black Market Comes to mind. It's huge in Cuba.

Women aren't a commodity and their appearance aren't the sole measure of their worth. This is true now, and it'll be true in a socialist system too.

Jesus fucking Christ what is this? I thought you were better than that. Are you trolling? Drunk?

Eva
4th June 2009, 00:08
29. Do you understand menstruation?

Because that seriously would make you a hardcore super dreamy radical sensitive alternative dude.

Eva
4th June 2009, 00:11
Hot babes are worth something more than non hot babes.

You're a genius.

Glenn Beck
4th June 2009, 00:16
Hot babes are worth something more than non hot babes. They comand an interest. The question is how could that interest be brokered? There's no question that in ANY society (Communist or otherwise) valuable thing are going to be bought and sold--it's just a matter of how.

You're objectifying women, I'm not going to bother with the ethical implications of this because other people have gone into it and I doubt you will care anyway, rather I'll just point out that acting as if women lack agency leads to an inaccurate understanding. It is inaccurate because in a socialist society there is equality of the genders and women are free agents. Who is going to pimp them? You :laugh:? No, if they decide to sell themselves they will, just that, DECIDE to, because they will be perfectly able to obtain the necessities of life through legitimate channels.

And in a society where the socialist means of production are developed rather than on shaky foundations and isolated in the world where will there be the all pervasive market relations required for a woman to successfully prostitute herself? Prostitution, strictly speaking, is using ones body as a commodity, that is, a good to be exchanged for money. Not that easy to do as the role of money in an economy begins to diminish.


Black Market Comes to mind. It's huge in Cuba.

The black market in Cuba is a point of contact with the capitalist system because Cuba's transition to socialism is by no means complete (a completion of such a transition in a materially underdeveloped, resource deficient, geographically limited, and economically isolated territory is impossible). See above about the role of money in socialism. Also prostitution in Cuba is qualitatively different from prostitution under a purely capitalist economy because people don't need to do it to survive, but rather to increase their level of material comfort because Cuba has a scarcity of consumer goods for reasons I explained.

Bud Struggle
4th June 2009, 01:25
I believe you should apologize for the implied objectification of women in this statement. Here you have reduced a woman's body, and hence herself, to nothing more than 'the value of her appearance.'

Rorschach was justified in objecting to your claims.

- August

Well yes. My point wasn't TO objectify women--my point is that women ARE objectified. I was stating the reality of the situation. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear.

It doesn't matter if the State or Communism or the gods of the Politically Correct would wish it to be other wise. A beautiful woman would be no less a desired object under Communism or Capitalism or Feudalism.

I do apologize--I certainly didn't mean anythng negative towards women.

Bud Struggle
4th June 2009, 01:37
You're objectifying women, I'm not going to bother with the ethical implications of this because other people have gone into it and I doubt you will care anyway, rather I'll just point out that acting as if women lack agency leads to an inaccurate understanding. It is inaccurate because in a socialist society there is equality of the genders and women are free agents. Who is going to pimp them? You :laugh:? No, if they decide to sell themselves they will, just that, DECIDE to, because they will be perfectly able to obtain the necessities of life through legitimate channels. That is wishful thinking. What makes you think ANY of that is true? In every "Socialist" society that's been tries--women have been equal in name only. Actually the United States does a much better job in granting equality to women than the USSR or China has ever done.


And in a society where the socialist means of production are developed rather than on shaky foundations and isolated in the world where will there be the all pervasive market relations required for a woman to successfully prostitute herself? Prostitution, strictly speaking, is using ones body as a commodity, that is, a good to be exchanged for money. Not that easy to do as the role of money in an economy begins to diminish. I never meant prostitution. It's just that a beautiful woman might be able to command for herself--something. I'm not quite sure what. She would not be someone elses property--but a property of herself.




The black market in Cuba is a point of contact with the capitalist system because Cuba's transition to socialism is by no means complete (a completion of such a transition in a materially underdeveloped, resource deficient, geographically limited, and economically isolated territory is impossible). See above about the role of money in socialism. Also prostitution in Cuba is qualitatively different from prostitution under a purely capitalist economy because people don't need to do it to survive, but rather to increase their level of material comfort because Cuba has a scarcity of consumer goods for reasons I explained. The Black market in Cuba is a product of one thing and one thing only--Cuba can't take care of it's own population. All the consumer good are available in Cuba--you can buy anything you want--the problem is that Cuba can't produce enough to make it's money worth anything to any outside producer of goods.

Prostitution in Cuba is a semi-State approved way of getting much needed foreign money.

Blackscare
4th June 2009, 01:53
So how is the "worth" of a woman decided and brokered in today's society? Yes, there are more and less attractive women in the world. What the fuck does that matter? What do women "trade" their beauty for? All it effects is whether a particular person decides to ask them on a date or something like that. It's not an economic matter. It certainly isn't a matter for society to "manage" (though you're not being clear at all about what is being "managed") And in a communist society where people's needs are adequately met, why on earth would a woman decide to treat herself as a commodity in the first place?


I'm sorry TomK because you're my favorite OI'er, but this is just fucking stupid and incoherent. What the fuck is your point here, besides offending people and making an ass out of yourself?

Explain coherently what it is you're on about and in what way a woman's beauty translates into economic value or something otherwise quantifiable and thus "manageable" by society, please.

Jack
4th June 2009, 01:56
<---- Sides with everything RGacky just said, but has no points of his own.

Jack
4th June 2009, 01:58
So how is the "worth" of a woman decided and brokered in today's society? Yes, there are more and less attractive women in the world. What the fuck does that matter? What do women "trade" their beauty for? All it effects is whether a particular person decides to ask them on a date or something like that. It's not an economic matter. It certainly isn't a matter for society to "manage" (though you're not being clear at all about what is being "managed") And in a communist society where people's needs are adequately met, why on earth would a woman decide to treat herself as a commodity in the first place?


I'm sorry TomK because you're my favorite OI'er, but this is just fucking stupid and incoherent. What the fuck is your point here, besides offending people and making an ass out of yourself?

Explain coherently what it is you're on about and in what way a woman's beauty translates into economic value or something otherwise quantifiable and thus "manageable" by society, please.

He wasn't speaking of the economic value of women, just hopw attractive they are. Obviously Jessica Simpson is more "sexually valuable" to me than is Rosie O'Donnel. It doesn't mean Rosie is any less of a person (hell, she's at least 3 Jessica Simpson's in width, don't shoot me for saying it), or any less valuable to society, it just means she isn't attractive.

Could we not extend the same to women and ask the value of Fabio v. Larry The Cable Guy?

Blackscare
4th June 2009, 02:07
Yes but he is saying that beauty "value" is somehow quantifiable and manageable by society. I'd like to know what he means.

Blackscare
4th June 2009, 02:11
Also, we had a thread about this a while back. I made a similar point to the OP but I focused more on the unfair way that the questions were formulated than addressing each distinct question, mostly because I didn't want to put my foot in my mouth on accident on one question and have people write off the rest of my points.

Bud Struggle
4th June 2009, 02:11
So how is the "worth" of a woman decided and brokered in today's society? Yes, there are more and less attractive women in the world. It's not just about money--though somehow it all boils down to that ind the end. Better looking women in today's society command power. They "sell" their sexiness for money (that model Gizzele Whateverherlastnameis made 33 million dollars last year--that''s a lot of money in my book) and for power. Beautiful wome tend to marry powerful and rich men. There's entire businesses in making women better looking--there'a reason for it. They command a value. Did you ever turn on Fox News? Or open a magazine? There's a VALUE to good looks.



What the fuck does that matter? What do women "trade" their beauty for? All it effects is whether a particular person decides to ask them on a date or something like that. It's not an economic matter. It certainly isn't a matter for society to "manage" (though you're not being clear at all about what is being "managed") And in a communist society where people's needs are adequately met, why on earth would a woman decide to treat herself as a commodity in the first place? Women trade their looks for more than just a date. Women's looks are big business (and I don't mean Prostitution) my question is how will that be used after the Revolution. It's a comodity and begs to be traded--I'm just wondering how.


Explain coherently what it is you're on about and in what way a woman's beauty translates into economic value or something otherwise quantifiable and thus "manageable" by society, please. It's traded quite well now--and it will be after the Revolution--I just don't know how.

Again--I didn't mean to be offensive--I just meant to state what I thought was a pretty obvious fact. FWIW: I lived in Manhattan for years and I saw what the "market" for models was like. There was a price for this look as opposed to that look, this size as opposed to that size. There were "bra" models that made a living by being a perfect "B" cup. Leg models, hand models. Then there were the "showbiz" people--not stars, but people that made a living by having "young mom" look or a this or that look. And these were people without "talent." (Mot that these people were worthless or anything--but they couldn't sing or dance or write music.) There was another world of "lookers" with talent. It was interesting stuff.

RGacky3
4th June 2009, 10:18
I wonder how a Communist society would work that out? Wouldn't some women be more "valuable" than other women? Wouldn't some women continue to set the styles and be of more (sexual) interest to men? And for that matter--the same in the other direction.


If your asking about Gack's post--I guess it's some sort of advanced Anarchy.

This has NOTHING to do with communism OR anarchism at all. This has nothing to do with commodities, or trade, or economics. Trying to turn it into that is rediculous and distorts the Issue. What your doing is as rediculous as people who apply class struggle concepts to things like sports and food (cream cakes are bourgeoisie).


I believe you should apologize for the implied objectification of women in this statement. Here you have reduced a woman's body, and hence herself, to nothing more than 'the value of her appearance.'

Of coarse, when your looking for a girl you want to sleep with of coarse her value TO YOU is her looks. The same way a plumbers value to you at that time is how good he is at plumbing.

There is no such thing as innate value, you can value yourself, and other people can value you for different things.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/manarchisti-t110174/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/manarchisti-t110174/showthread.php?p=1457747#post1457747)
This one is incredible. Now not to be an ass, but its interesting that in my experience women who critisize the so called "mainstream beauty standards" are ugly women.
I've decided you're an idiot.

Just making an observation, in my experiance that has been the case. I rarely hear women who get a lot of attention from men complain about "beauty standards".

BTW, instead of calling me an idiot, why not say why I'm wrong?


Heres another point, some people might call me a chauvinist or whatever. However I believe that women should be treated as equals, meaning same job opportunities, same say in politics, in a communist society same say over the means of production and resouces and so on. However that also means, not treating them as special. All of my points, are about treating women equal, as men, not more special than a man, and treating them as mature adults that can make their own desicion, not putting them on a pedestal. Not worrying more about a womans feelings than you would a man. Not giving a woman special respect unless she earns it, like you would a man.

This same post called mens nagging for sex coercion (why a man would stay with a girl he has to nag for sex is beyond me), while at the same time condems men who need to be nagged because they don't complete their "responsibilities".

Also once again TomK, don't try and turn this into a communism/capitalism political/economics thing, because its not.

Bud Struggle
4th June 2009, 12:07
This has NOTHING to do with communism OR anarchism at all. This has nothing to do with commodities, or trade, or economics. Trying to turn it into that is rediculous and distorts the Issue. What your doing is as rediculous as people who apply class struggle concepts to things like sports and food (cream cakes are bourgeoisie). In the same way you seem to see things in thems of worker's struggles and all of that--I see them in terms of trade. The "sexiness" for want of a better word--has a certain inate value because there is a certain value that men give to certain shapes of women over others. And the same things works in reverse with what women look for in men--it's not one sided. It IS human nature.


Of coarse, when your looking for a girl you want to sleep with of coarse her value TO YOU is her looks. The same way a plumbers value to you at that time is how good he is at plumbing. Quite the romantic aren't you? :D


There is no such thing as innate value, you can value yourself, and other people can value you for different things. While there is no such thing as pure innate value--the human condition certainly gives value to things and to people and we can't escape it.


Just making an observation, in my experiance that has been the case. I rarely hear women who get a lot of attention from men complain about "beauty standards". That's true. But maybe you and the macho world of RevLeft may not see it but the beauty world and wanna be beauty world is HUGE. And it's universal. Women wear jewlrey all over the world, they use cosmetics all over the world--it's just something natural for them to want to be available to men--and men look for that in a woman. It's biological not political.


BTW, instead of calling me an idiot, why not say why I'm wrong? It's a macho thing. :)



Heres another point, some people might call me a chauvinist or whatever. However I believe that women should be treated as equals, meaning same job opportunities, same say in politics, in a communist society same say over the means of production and resouces and so on. However that also means, not treating them as special. All of my points, are about treating women equal, as men, not more special than a man, and treating them as mature adults that can make their own desicion, not putting them on a pedestal. Not worrying more about a womans feelings than you would a man. Not giving a woman special respect unless she earns it, like you would a man. The problem here is that women ARE differnet than men--why shouldn't they be treated differently? Not with less rights--but differently.


Also once again TomK, don't try and turn this into a communism/capitalism political/economics thing, because its not.

Yea, it's human nature.

RGacky3
4th June 2009, 12:35
I see them in terms of trade. The "sexiness" for want of a better word--has a certain inate value because there is a certain value that men give to certain shapes of women over others.

Anarchism is about economic power, and political power. This is personal relationships. You could say sunsets have value, and stuff like that, that does'nt mean it has to do with economic/political power.


Quite the romantic aren't you?

sometimes :)


But maybe you and the macho world of RevLeft may not see it but the beauty world and wanna be beauty world is HUGE. And it's universal. Women wear jewlrey all over the world, they use cosmetics all over the world--it's just something natural for them to want to be available to men--and men look for that in a woman.

I agree, women are generally attracted to certain things, and men are generally attracted to certain things, naturally, politicising it is rediculous.


I made a similar point to the OP but I focused more on the unfair way that the questions were formulated than addressing each distinct question, mostly because I didn't want to put my foot in my mouth on accident on one question and have people write off the rest of my points.

THIS is why oversensitive Policial Correctness does, makes people afraid to have honest discussions about things out of fear that peopl will just get angry at them.

Radical
6th June 2009, 03:17
Hot babes are worth something more than non hot babes. They comand an interest. The question is how could that interest be brokered? There's no question that in ANY society (Communist or otherwise) valuable thing are going to be bought and sold--it's just a matter of how.

Black Market Comes to mind. It's huge in Cuba.

haha

political_animal
6th June 2009, 23:15
Is this entire thread just a joke? I fail to understand what 'value' has to do in terms of someone's 'sexiness', I mean, what is the point here? Are we to employ 'sexy' people to be professional baby machines, or to provide some stimulation to someone after a hard days work?!!!

Bright Banana Beard
6th June 2009, 23:26
Is this entire thread just a joke? I fail to understand what 'value' has to do in terms of someone's 'sexiness', I mean, what is the point here? Are we to employ 'sexy' people to be professional baby machines, or to provide some stimulation to someone after a hard days work?!!!
I seriously do not understand what TomK trying to point out. Sidestepping as usual.

Kollentsky
7th June 2009, 18:12
I think the error in this 'quiz'(?) is mainly, as alluded to in some of the OP's original responses, the confusion of feminine characteristics with things that are 'good' (or alternatively, with masculine characteristics as being 'bad'). So, for example, the point about macho-bravado is well made: radicals should aspire to bravery and daring if they at some point wish to take on the power of the state. The fact that some women don't wish to 'dominate' meetings and therefore remain quiet is not a good thing, but a bad thing; if you have an opinion you should fight to have it voiced. Etc. Similarly, the quiz's claim that sexual pestering is a form of (presumably masculine) coercion begins from the standpoint that women are passive participants in sexual relations, with no ability to assert their sexuality - and conversely, that to assert one's sexual wants is some kind of masculine characteristic. This is actually more of a campaign for puritanical missionary-style sex than any form of gender liberation; the author evidently having ascribed women with an unbreakably weak role in inter-gender interactions and continuing from that founding presumption.

Chatting shit about 'emotional differences' between men and women, however, is total bullshit and completely meaningless. Even if someone could pull some convincing stats out of their arse for this, which ruled out the idea that socialisation plays a much greater role than genetics (which I doubt exist) it's irrelevent; general tendencies aren't something which should be ascribed or expected of individuals, as the potential for huge behavioural variation exists even within the most restrictive circumstances.

#FF0000
7th June 2009, 20:57
I seriously do not understand what TomK trying to point out. Sidestepping as usual.

TomK communicated what he was trying to say horribly, I think. He was asking how a socialist society would deal with favoritism based on physical attractiveness. That sort of became more clear as the thread progressed.

And speaking of, I'll just take this time to apologize to TomK (Bud Struggle) for being a dick.

Not to RGacky though. Criticizing the whole Manarchism thing is fine. There's lots to criticize. But the statement I took issue with is flatly sexist.

Bud Struggle
8th June 2009, 00:04
TomK communicated what he was trying to say horribly, I think. He was asking how a socialist society would deal with favoritism based on physical attractiveness. That sort of became more clear as the thread progressed. You said in three lines what it too me 8 post to say. :rolleyes: I never meant to offend women--it did sort of come out that way and I certainly take responsibility for my words.


And speaking of, I'll just take this time to apologize to TomK (Bud Struggle) for being a dick. Thanks, that's kind of you. I also have to admit on Friday nights I sometime indulge in a glass of sherry (or maybe something a bit stronger. And sometimes more than just a glass.) So I might not be up to my usual posting abilities.:blushing:

Thank you for understanding.

RGacky3
8th June 2009, 08:26
Even if someone could pull some convincing stats out of their arse for this, which ruled out the idea that socialisation plays a much greater role than genetics (which I doubt exist) it's irrelevent; general tendencies aren't something which should be ascribed or expected of individuals, as the potential for huge behavioural variation exists even within the most restrictive circumstances.

Mens levels of testosterone are much higher than womens levels, and womens levels of estrogen are much higher than mens. Its also common knowledge that those hormoes effect behavior, so its not all "socialisation".


But the statement I took issue with is flatly sexist.

How so? just stating an observation.

Kollentsky
8th June 2009, 12:46
Mens levels of testosterone are much higher than womens levels, and womens levels of estrogen are much higher than mens. Its also common knowledge that those hormoes effect behavior, so its not all "socialisation".

And almost all men produce an extremely similar amount of testosterone; yet the variation in behavioural patterns commonly associated with it (aggression, assertiveness, etc) are enormous. Similarly, there are women with propensities to violence equal to that of any man. Testosterone and Oestrogen are only scientifically linked with factors tangental to behavioural patterns commonly associated with "gendered" behaviour. Testosterone is, for example, linked to increased confidence - which can, if directed towards violent aims, exacerbate violent tendencies. However, it doesn't lead to violence per se - socialisation leads to that.

And regardless, my point was that even if hormones lead to certain genetic predispositions, those predispositions pale in comparison to socialisation and the individual variation of people's behaviour. The purpose of anti-sexism is to treat people as the people they are, regardless of gender, and enable them to be who they want to be regardless of essentially warrantless categories.

RGacky3
8th June 2009, 13:08
And almost all men produce an extremely similar amount of testosterone; yet the variation in behavioural patterns commonly associated with it (aggression, assertiveness, etc) are enormous. Similarly, there are women with propensities to violence equal to that of any man. Testosterone and Oestrogen are only scientifically linked with factors tangental to behavioural patterns commonly associated with "gendered" behaviour. Testosterone is, for example, linked to increased confidence - which can, if directed towards violent aims, exacerbate violent tendencies. However, it doesn't lead to violence per se - socialisation leads to that.

I personally think the 2 are intertwined, socialization and genetics, for example like you said testosterone is linked to confidence, which is why many cultures value confidence in men more than its valued in women. I personally don't find anything wrong with that. That being said, if a man or a woman chooses to go out of what traditionally would be considered his or her "role," there is nothing wrong with that either.

The same goes with the complaint about "traditional beauty," if you take issue with that concept of "traditional beauty" and go against it, thats fine, just don't be supprised of not many people find you attractive.


And regardless, my point was that even if hormones lead to certain genetic predispositions, those predispositions pale in comparison to socialisation and the individual variation of people's behaviour. The purpose of anti-sexism is to treat people as the people they are, regardless of gender, and enable them to be who they want to be regardless of essentially warrantless categories.

I compleatly agree, treat people as people. I take no issue with that.

What I do take issue with is people who claim to want equality of the sexes but who still want to be catred to.

#FF0000
9th June 2009, 19:44
How so? just stating an observation.

No. You weren't just stating an observation. You were suggesting that the criticisms of mainstream beauty standards are less valid because the people that make them women who you perceive to be less attractive, as if the opinion of a woman you'd consider attractive is more valid than that of a woman who you don't believe is attractive.

RGacky3
10th June 2009, 08:07
You were suggesting that the criticisms of mainstream beauty standards are less valid because the people that make them women who you perceive to be less attractive

First of all any criticism of mainstreat beauty standards is rediculous, its like criticism the deliciousness of Mexican food over the undeliciousness of british food. Beauty standards have to do with sexaul attraction.

My observation was to point out that women who are more attractive generally have no problem with the so-called beauty standards (which are really just things that men find attractive, not "standards"), whereas many women who are not attractive will criticise them because it makes them "not attractive".

My point is any criticism or praise or whatever of beauty standards is rediculous, its sexaul attraction, you might as well criticise or praise food deliciousness standards.