Feminism is NOT Communist [Archive]

View Full Version : Feminism is NOT Communist

Frank Zapatista

27th February 2010, 21:01

Jia

27th February 2010, 21:04

Yes there are feminists who go too far and seemingly want to place women above men in the process, but for the most part is for equality, it is not communist in itself but ties nicely into it.

Crusade

27th February 2010, 21:57

I'm a male feminist and the ideology of feminism IS gender equality. The goal of empowering women is to reach equality. We're talking countless centuries of female oppression which imo has lead to suppressing the potential of more than half of the population. It's like if you had broken legs and you paid more attention to it than your arms. The goal is to nurture the injured area to recovery, not show "favoritism" of any kind. Regardless of how many people misrepresent the ideology, the idea remains the same.

Invincible Summer

27th February 2010, 21:59

Ive been lurking around here for awhile now and one of the things that irks me is the amount of "Communists" here who refer to themselves as Feminists. Communists believe in gender EQUALITY and Feminism has the tendency to be more anti man and pro women that actually being about gender equality. I am a proud Communist but I dont want to be associated with Feminists. I know Feminists and by simply talking to a Feminist you can see their prejudice, I debated with a girl at my school about this once and one of her arguments was that "any form of sex other than for procreation is degrading to women". I cannot think of a single sexual act off the top of my head that I believe degrades the female being. Sexual acts are about the partners pleasuring each other.

I'm talking from a sociological POV which sees that women are a marginalized group in relation to men. They are marginalized economically (e.g. through pay differentials), socially (are seen as weaker, illogical/emotional, etc), and politically/legally (e.g. in the US women only have the right to vote, not seen as equal to men under the law). Therefore, feminism looks at eliminating the marginalized character of women, which would involve examining patriarchal and androcentric relations within societies.
This could be misinterpreted as being "anti-man," when in reality, most societies are already very much "pro-man," so by critically examining the relationship between society and women, feminists are really just levelling the playing field.

Of course, there are feminists who take things a bit far, even advocating matriarchal societies and forced lesbianism (not biologically being a lesbian, but actually choosing to be a lesbian) to be actually anti-man.

The main problem I have with feminism is from a communist perspective - feminism says that women have more in common with each other than with members of the working class. Feminism inherently says that an unmarried working class woman working two jobs to feed her child has more in common with a fellow woman that earns $80k annually and a nuclear family than with fellow working class women.
In principle, this is pretty counter-revolutionary.

Feminism is about empowering the Female being, Communists are about equality.
Actually I'd say more 3rd-wave feminism is about "empowerment." This usually is represented as "embracing woman-ness and sexuality" as ways to make women feel empowered. It's not so much empowering women on a social, economic, political level as much as an individual level. It's pretty middle-class and bourgeois, very commonplace in consumer marketing towards women.

scarletghoul

27th February 2010, 22:06

The Ungovernable Farce

27th February 2010, 22:34

Feminism is not a single fixed political position. Feminists don't agree with each other any more than anarchist-communists agree with Hoxhaists. Liberal feminism is not communist, anarcha-feminism and socialist/Marxist feminism are.

manic expression

27th February 2010, 22:47

AverageMarxist, I know where you're coming from, I felt the same way for a time...but just remember that feminism is extremely diverse. It's probably the most varied "ideology" in the world. Don't let the absurd feminists (the ones who say "all hetero sex is rape", blah blah) shape your opinions of feminists who genuinely want equality and progress.

And by the way, welcome to RevLeft! :thumbup1:

Jimmie Higgins

28th February 2010, 03:01

Communists believe in gender EQUALITY and Feminism has the tendency to be more anti man and pro women that actually being about gender equality.Well mainstream feminism doesn't even entertain the idea of gender separatism or female superiority that some of the groups argued for in the 1970s and early 80s. The problem with mainstream feminism - or at least the liberal feminist groups - from a Marxist perspective is that they have taken a class-collaborationist approach (as Rise Like Lions said). They have put the interests of women becoming part of the bourgeois establishment over the interests of working class women. By doing this, these groups basically dug their own grave because now working class people (women, not just men) think that feminism is elitist and not connected to their experience - also the same group of female elites that the liberal feminists focused on are now often the same people arguing for moderation on the abortion issue and to tone-down feminist rhetoric.

For this reason I usually say I am for women's liberation, rather than a feminist, but I would not take it as an insult if someone said I was a feminist. I would also consider it a really great development if more people began to consider themselves feminists and were interested in fighting for women's lib. A revival of grassroots feminism would be a great step in the right direction. The amount of unchallenged and blatant sexism in popular culture and general society is really disgusting and every time I have organized a meeting about women's liberation it has resulted in a bigger than expected audience - people really feel sexism in their daily lives and have no ideas or much hope (right now) that things can change and women's liberation, can be won.

bcbm

28th February 2010, 04:39

Feminism inherently says that an unmarried working class woman working two jobs to feed her child has more in common with a fellow woman that earns $80k annually and a nuclear family than with fellow working class women.

i don't think this is inherent in feminism, given the number of communist and anarchist feminists who clearly don't believe this is the case.

Invincible Summer

28th February 2010, 05:33

i don't think this is inherent in feminism, given the number of communist and anarchist feminists who clearly don't believe this is the case.

I should've specified that I was talking about mainstream feminism

Guerrilla22

28th February 2010, 06:29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_Feminism

jake williams

28th February 2010, 06:37

Feminism practically isn't a term that means anything. It's not a single coherent ideology or political viewpoint or set of political viewpoints. It's a long history of debate on a number of questions about the nature and role of gender in our society.

Historically "feminism" referred to a group, mostly of women, who were sort of a mix of civil rights advocates, suffragettes and the like, and then some others (although including a lot of the suffragettes) who thought that the problem with society was that the "feminine virtues" hadn't enough influence in society. This all was extremely important in the development of basic civil and human rights for women, but those views historically decontextualized and taken today would be considered, or I think should be considered, pretty reactionary.

Nowadays, however, the term "feminism" mostly refers to two general poles of the debate.

One is what I term "liberal feminism" which contextualizes its positions on gender with in the broader tradition of bourgeois liberalism. The perspective is that women should be given "equal rights" as men as members of a capitalist society, or perhaps, a social democratic society. With more or less pressure by society or the state, women should be given equal rights to men under capitalism, to own, to purchase, to work as capitalists and high level administrators, etc. The focus, however, is not on the economy, or the real conditions faced by women as a group and as individuals, but on personal lives: individual actions by individual men, or occasionally groups of men, against individual women. So they're against, say, offensive comments. They're not fundamentally against the totally abominable distribution of wealth, and the robbery of women as a section of the working class, because they can't be, because they're liberals.

The other pole is what is dubbed the "radical" pole. They claim to represent a systematic analysis of gender oppression, which would be a positive thing, but they also believe in all kinds of inane and even reactionary shit about how men are inherently misogynistic, women are naturally better people, women are more in tune with "Mother Earth", the fundamental problems with society come from men being in positions of power, etc. I'm generally in favour of "radicalism", but these types really are in a lot of cases just disruptive reactionaries who give feminism and gender advocacy a bad name.

There are actually good people who fall within the spectrum of feminist debate, and you'll fine some here, but they're pretty sparse.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

28th February 2010, 07:27

I don't know. Communism means class equality and control over the means of production, etc. Couldn't women be viewed as superior to men and control society, in general, but lack complete control over the means of production. Perhaps a reproductive hierarchy based on control of the means of production, pregnancy, in a particular area where it can't be shared?

I don't support a female domination over men. Intellectually, there isn't much reason to support it. I think the argument arises from emotions that many of us can sympathize with. Women tend to cooperate more and cause less destruction and violence. Hence, it's easy to have problems with "men." Of course, a deeper look reveals that testosterone may increase the probability of violence, perhaps, but the social conditioning ultimately determines whether a person is a decent citizen.

whore

28th February 2010, 13:01

Meridian

28th February 2010, 14:33

It is great if feminists wants equality (by which I of course mean equal opportunities, right to decent life, goods, etc.) between sexes. If they hold that revolutionary idea, which means they are communists, then they are my comrades.

However, I wont call myself a "feminist", because in the word lies the idea that only women are the ones in need of representation and empowerment. To some degree, there has of course been truth to this. Today, and in my world, it is not the case. In some cases, "feminism" without a class perspective today is downright reactionary, the effects of which are clearly felt by boys in school (amongst other groups).

eyedrop

28th February 2010, 15:08

It is great if feminists wants equality (by which I of course mean equal opportunities, right to decent life, goods, etc.) between sexes. If they hold that revolutionary idea, which means they are communists, then they are my comrades. To free women one necessarily needs to diminish, or abolish, gender roles and as such feminists need to work on combating both parts of the gender roles. For example Kvinnefronten (http://www.kvinnefronten.no/Tema_politikk/Familiepolitikk/853) is for extending Norway's paternal leave to 4 months.

I disagree slightly in that feminists can want gender equality without being communists.

Dean

28th February 2010, 15:38

Ive been lurking around here for awhile now and one of the things that irks me is the amount of "Communists" here who refer to themselves as Feminists. Communists believe in gender EQUALITY and Feminism has the tendency to be more anti man and pro women that actually being about gender equality. I am a proud Communist but I dont want to be associated with Feminists. I know Feminists and by simply talking to a Feminist you can see their prejudice, I debated with a girl at my school about this once and one of her arguments was that "any form of sex other than for procreation is degrading to women". I cannot think of a single sexual act off the top of my head that I believe degrades the female being. Sexual acts are about the partners pleasuring each other. Feminism is about empowering the Female being, Communists are about equality.

Feminism can be a vile, conservative reaction like what you mention there, or it can be a very positive, egalitarian system of female liberation. While I am wary of calling myself a feminist (just as I might be wary of fully backing black nationalism or other, identity-narrow tendencies) I adamantly support the feminist movement insofar as it stands for equality, which is primarily what I have seen expressed by feminists.

I think a lot of feminists cross some boundaries, but not so much in terms of policy arguments, which indeed could be an issue, but in terms of language chauvinism. Some feminists I have encountered use male-oriented terms as hyperbole, such as "macho," and I think this is both narrow-minded and non-materialist (as well as being acutely divisive).

Frankly, I think that explicit policies promoted by some comrades, such as vanguardism and purges are much more dangerous, divisive and anti-communist than any of the feminist doctrine I've found wanting.

I would absolutely reject the notion that feminism is, either as a rule or generally, non-communist.

Pawn Power

28th February 2010, 16:07

And Communism is not Feminism. But if we want it to have any salience to over half of society, we will make sure that Feminism plays an important role in our theory and practice.

Meridian

28th February 2010, 16:26

And Communism is not Feminism. But if we want it to have any salience to over half of society, we will make sure that Feminism plays an important role in our theory and practice.
Following that logic, you could as well say it would be stupid to support feminism as that would be excluding half of society. Luckily, the goal is not simply power, no matter what. If it were, we would be renaming ourselves the Moderate Republicans Online.

Communism and class-perspective is about the whole of humanity. Not women. Not men. Everyone. What you get by supporting "feminism" is a division detrimental to our cause. Will females benefit from communism? Of course, generally, females will benefit. So will males, at least 90% of them.

The Ungovernable Farce

28th February 2010, 16:44

Communism and class-perspective is about the whole of humanity. Not women. Not men. Everyone. What you get by supporting "feminism" is a division detrimental to our cause. Will females benefit from communism? Of course, generally, females will benefit. So will males, at least 90% of them.
Is communism and class perspective about the bourgeoisie? Or are they excluded from humanity? Discussing feminism and gender analysis isn't about being divisive, it's about recognising that divisions do already exist, and working to overcome them. The fact that half the class has power over the other half is detrimental to class unity, so feminism is vital if we're to move towards communism (as well as just for its own sake).

Pawn Power

28th February 2010, 16:45

Following that logic, you could as well say it would be stupid to support feminism as that would be excluding half of society. Luckily, the goal is not simply power, no matter what. If it were, we would be renaming ourselves the Moderate Republicans Online.

This comes with the assumption that Feminism detrimental to people who identity as male. However, men have a lot to gain in understanding and taking on a Feminist perspective.

I don't really know you at all but I would say from my initial interaction that you know very little about Feminism. So, I am hesitant to continue any discussion. You appear extremely defensive and almost frightened at Feminism as if it is an attack on masculinity or something.

The Ungovernable Farce

28th February 2010, 16:56

I don't really know you at all but I would say from my initial interaction that you know very little about Feminism. So, I am hesitant to continue any discussion. You appear extremely defensive and almost frightened at Feminism as if it is an attack on masculinity or something.
Maybe this is just me being a radfem, but I'd think that feminism is an attack on masculinity, and on femininity, since both sets of gender roles are limiting and harmful constructs. It's not an attack on men, though (well, unless they're being dickheads). Obv, I generally agree with you that he seems excessively defensive and frightened.

Revy

28th February 2010, 16:59

Meridian

28th February 2010, 17:33

Is communism and class perspective about the bourgeoisie? Or are they excluded from humanity?They are humans as far as I know. And yes, communism and class perspective is partially about the bourgeoisie (affecting them). What I described is a perspective theory, that people now tend to identify more with the term woman or man than with their social relations in terms of production, or even ideology.

This is what I am against, and is my beef with "feminism". Note that I am not opposed to feminist practice (towards equal rights, opportunities, etc.), but I am against the term since I think it brings attention to the wrong thing. What I want is nothing short of communism, and "feminism", while perhaps progressive in capitalism, is not the way to bring about what most feminists want.

To you who say I seem offended or defensive or whatever; that's a misunderstanding in that case, I am not.

This comes with the assumption that Feminism detrimental to people who identity as male. However, men have a lot to gain in understanding and taking on a Feminist perspective.
You misunderstood me. As I tried to indicate I was referring to the term "feminism". In the "goal" of gaining popularity never mind all costs, it could just as well be considered negative trying to appeal to one half of the proletarians as it could be positive. Never mind, though, I was speaking ironically.

Men will only learn submission by taking on a "Feminist" perspective, as women would learn submission by taking on a "Masculinist" (go figure, that isn't considered a proper word) perspective. "Anti-sexism" is more to my liking.

Pawn Power

28th February 2010, 18:05

You misunderstood me. As I tried to indicate I was referring to the term "feminism". In the "goal" of gaining popularity never mind all costs, it could just as well be considered negative trying to appeal to one half of the proletarians as it could be positive. Never mind, though, I was speaking ironically.

It is not about "appealing" or rather, being preferential to half (really over half) of society, but about being inclusive. That is, for our organizations to be inclusive we adopt aspects of Feminism. I think your assumption is that doing this necessarily eludes men. I don't think this is the case.

Men will only learn submission by taking on a "Feminist" perspective, as women would learn submission by taking on a "Masculinist" (go figure, that isn't considered a proper word) perspective. "Anti-sexism" is more to my liking.

Again, it doesn't seem like we are using the term Feminism in the same way. Feminism is not the "opposite" of "masculinity." Indeed, there is no ideology of "Masculinity." This is because society already favors men in practically all aspect of life. Thinking in terms of men "submitting" to a "Feminist perspective" misses the point. Feminism doesn't mean suppressing men but deconstructing the general roles that a capitalist and patriarchal society has created.

Meridian

28th February 2010, 18:29

It is not about "appealing" or rather, being preferential to half (really over half) of society, but about being inclusive.
Saying 'over' half is a bit weird. Last I heard there were more men around than women, except for among the elderly. Well, not that it matters much.

That is, for our organizations to be inclusive we adopt aspects of Feminism. I think your assumption is that doing this necessarily eludes men. I don't think this is the case.
I agree with the "aspects of feminism" thing; namely the aspects which desires to drive out all discrimination based on gender. My argument was not that adopting aspects of feminism eludes men, but that the term "feminism" may. I find I have to repeat this point quite a lot.

Again, it doesn't seem like we are using the term Feminism in the same way. Feminism is not the "opposite" of "masculinity."
I did not claim that. As a theoretical opposite of feminism I used the word "masculinism". That is a term that I have only heard seen used twice or so, yet for every time I have failed to see it I have seen thousand cases where men/boys as a group (not the totality of all men!) have been victim of some politically or economically discriminatory situation. In those cases, there is no appeal to gender but to other forms of categorization. They are not men, then: they are their occupation, their age, their class, their income, their intelligence, their style, etc. Why is it so? Well, perhaps there is conditioning on men to not be victims, so when they actually are the victims they are not men.

Indeed, there is no ideology of "Masculinity." This is because society already favors men in practically all aspect of life. Thinking in terms of men "submitting" to a "Feminist perspective" misses the point. Feminism doesn't mean suppressing men but deconstructing the general roles that a capitalist and patriarchal society has created.
If that was the case, then I'd be happy. Unfortunately I think it lies in the very word feminism to have a one-sided focus in this struggle.

Pawn Power

28th February 2010, 18:37

I did not claim that. As a theoretical opposite of feminism I used the word "masculinism". That is a term that I have only heard seen used twice or so, yet for every time I have failed to see it I have seen thousand cases where men/boys as a group (not the totality of all men!) have been victim of some politically or economically discriminatory situation. In those cases, there is no appeal to gender but to other forms of categorization. They are not men, then: they are their occupation, their age, their class, their income, their intelligence, their style, etc. Why is it so? Well, perhaps there is conditioning on men to not be victims, so when they actually are the victims they are not men.
(my emphasis.)

The point is it is not because they are male.

If that was the case, then I'd be happy. Unfortunately I think it lies in the very word feminism to have a one-sided focus in this struggle.Well like I said before you appear to know very little about Feminism and I am hesitant to continue any discussion because I don't really have the time/energy to try to educate someone right now-- especially some random person on the internet. Sorry. Maybe you can have this strange and uninformed discussion with someone else. Or, come back when you have a real and educated critique on Feminism and not that "ah, we men don't appeal to gender" and "feminism isn't inclusive- it alienates men."

eyedrop

28th February 2010, 19:08

(my emphasis.)

The point is it is not because they are male.

Also in generally female occupations men are quite often extra encouraged to apply.

I can't see many cases where men are specifically discriminated against except in custody cases and paternal/maternal leave.

Frank Zapatista

28th February 2010, 20:27

The OP doesnt understand either what feminism is, or the oppression of females.

Females have less power. Feminism works to empower them, thus creating a situation of equality.

Same with Black Power, which is to empower Black people. Not for supremecy but for equality.

Every communist should support feminism and Black Power, among other things, for without them we will never know freedom.
I disagree. We need to work together as a whole, as people and workers. Black Power seperates us into racial categories, we need to look past race and work together. Race is a social construct.

Frank Zapatista

28th February 2010, 20:31

The way I see it, a feminist is someone who supports the equality of women. It is a label that was invented for the movement of women's liberation.

I think everyone is getting caught up with the term. It's a descriptor for a person who supports gender equality. Think about that before you bash what you think is feminism.
Something called feminism is supposed to represent gender equality? What if im being discriminated against as a man, then were will the feminist groups be in helping me? We need to support gender equality as a whole.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

28th February 2010, 20:35

Communists believe in gender EQUALITY and Feminism has the tendency to be more anti man and pro women that actually being about gender equality.

No.

I'm sorry but thats just not the case, I can't speak for your personal experience, but feminism essentially stands for advocating improving the standards of women in relation to men. It isn't nessacarily "anti man" or "anti equality", and its a bit absurd to say that it is when the huge majority of feminists have always been very clear that they desire equality with men, not for women to be held as superior. I can't think of a single feminist off the top of my head who has claimed that women are superior to men.

And it doesn't matter what it is called, there are tonnes of examples of political terms, taken literally, meaning nothing at all with what a movement actually advocates.

(But for the record, I think it was called feminism because those involved wanted to improve the status of women..it was women centric, becaduse the libertarian of women had to be the work of women, an not of men.)

Frank Zapatista

28th February 2010, 20:51

The OP doesnt understand either what feminism is, or the oppression of females.

You're right I dont understand the oppression of females because im a maleand have never had to face the things they do. However im going to comtinue to fight for gender equality because its something I believe in and I would die to make the people equal again. I simply dont think Feminism is the best method of doing that.

Wolf Larson

28th February 2010, 21:29

Pawn Power

28th February 2010, 22:05

Something called feminism is supposed to represent gender equality? What if im being discriminated against as a man, then were will the feminist groups be in helping me? We need to support gender equality as a whole.

Yes, because men are o so often discriminated against because of their gender?

I lot of the "anti-Feminism" people in this conversation are showing their ignorance but can y'all at least be honest?

Meridian

28th February 2010, 22:06

The point is it is not because they are male.
Men as a group are discriminated against constantly. So are women.
Who are you to say what it is because? You are in fact proving my point: Men are not victims in this paradigm of modern society and feminism. Women are, and therefore they are discriminated against "because" they are females. They have to live up to all kinds of norms and roles, and if they make less wages than men it is "because" they are females. Of course, none of this is true of men! :rolleyes:

Well like I said before you appear to know very little about Feminism and I am hesitant to continue any discussion because I don't really have the time/energy to try to educate someone right now-- especially some random person on the internet. Sorry. Maybe you can have this strange and uninformed discussion with someone else. Or, come back when you have a real and educated critique on Feminism and not that "ah, we men don't appeal to gender" and "feminism isn't inclusive- it alienates men."That is a nice attitude. Seems to me it is you who is in need of basic education, as well as some common decency.

I lot [sic] of the "anti-Feminism" people in this conversation are showing their ignorance but can y'all at least be honest?
I am honest. What are you talking about?

The sexist tendency here is bloody reactionary.

whore

28th February 2010, 22:20

god. im with prawn power, the ignorence here is overwhelming.

once again, feminism is about equality, regardless of gender or sex.

feminism is not about holding down men, or subjecting men. any one who calls themeslves a feminist and wants that, is not a feminist in the true meaning of the word, and can be discounted. just like not all people who call themselves communist actually are.

but, im out of here. i wish some of the more educated revlefters could come in and school these fucking youngsters. (all male ? all threatened by the big nasty woman movement?)

Pawn Power

28th February 2010, 22:27

Men as a group are discriminated against constantly. So are women.
Who are you to say what it is because? You are in fact proving my point: Men are not victims in this paradigm of modern society and feminism. Women are, and therefore they are discriminated against "because" they are females. They have to live up to all kinds of norms and roles, and if they make less wages than men it is "because" they are females. Of course, none of this is true of men! :rolleyes:

That is a nice attitude. Seems to me it is you who is in need of basic education, as well as some common decency.

I am honest. What are you talking about?

The sexist tendency here is bloody reactionary.

This is basically incoherent.

Sorry if this sounds rude/patronizing but read a book (perfectible one about feminism) or better yet, talk to someone (maybe even a women!) who is involved in feminist struggles.

Wolf Larson

28th February 2010, 22:36

Men as a group are discriminated against constantly. So are women.
Who are you to say what it is because? You are in fact proving my point: Men are not victims in this paradigm of modern society and feminism. Women are, and therefore they are discriminated against "because" they are females. They have to live up to all kinds of norms and roles, and if they make less wages than men it is "because" they are females. Of course, none of this is true of men! :rolleyes:

That is a nice attitude. Seems to me it is you who is in need of basic education, as well as some common decency.

I am honest. What are you talking about?

The sexist tendency here is bloody reactionary.

Meridian- I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Feminists are taking on the bad traits of men? Feminism is unnecessary? Vulgar? Whats your point?

Hexen

28th February 2010, 22:40

Yes there are feminists who go too far and seemingly want to place women above men in the process

I guess I can identify this as "Bourgeoisie/Capitalist Feminism" which apparently these women basically want to dethrone males and place themselves as CEOs of major corporations/bureaucrats/etc and some shit like that or either that they want equal positions as CEOs/bureaucrats/etc but the outcome will always remain the same with exploited workers...

Pawn Power

28th February 2010, 22:42

Hey guys! Look! The whole introduction to the book, "Feminism is for Everybody" is available online: "Introduction: Come Closer to Feminism" (http://books.google.com/books?id=0au7QbAJH0gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

I already did half of the work for you. :)

Meridian

28th February 2010, 23:07

This is basically incoherent.

Sorry if this sounds rude/patronizing but read a book (perfectible one about feminism) or better yet, talk to someone (maybe even a women!) who is involved in feminist struggles.
There is nothing incoherent about my post. Read it again. If you find it difficult to answer in terms of debate instead of abuse then leave the forum now.

I have been a member of two feminist groups and a revolutionary party with feminism as a high priority, I've read several books about feminism, you could say I've grown up in a feminist setting. I talk to a multitude of women every day, and men, but few are as arrogant as you are.

Meridian- I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Feminists are taking on the bad traits of men? Feminism is unnecessary? Vulgar? Whats your point?
Thanks for asking.

My point is that there is a paradigm allowing women to be victims and disallowing men to be victims. That is how we conceptualize victims of discrimination into women when the victims are women, and conceptualize victims of discrimination into completely different factors when the victims are men. It is true of both men and women that they have to live up to all kinds of detrimental roles and norms, but this is mainly considered female discrimination. It is true that many females make less money than males, but then it isn't about those females being working class; it's about them being women. That is the paradigm I am talking about: We choose what we see.

I am for equality between sexes therefore I am against that paradigm.

Lynx

1st March 2010, 01:38

Yup, men cannot be victims (at least not in the discriminatory sense) - and so their concerns have no place in the feminist movement. So much for inclusion.
Meanwhile there is the "Men's Rights" movement, whose contribution to improving the lives of men has been to attack the feminist movement. Wow. If men are to begin the work of liberating themselves from gender roles, they're going to have to engage in something more constructive than shouting at women.

~
Do feminists believe communism will address sexism?
I can see positive socioeconomic benefits in light of a worker's revolution but most of the sexist attitudes and gender roles would, I believe, continue as before. More has to be torn down before gender equality can be achieved.

1st March 2010, 02:58

I have been inclined somewhat recently (and quite gradually) to accept the Marxist critique of Feminism as a historical (and ongoing) movement which encourages class-collaborationism and has generally represented the interests of white petit-bourgeois and bourgeois women. Historically it has also seen the root of women’s oppression as patriarchy - while being unable or unwilling to see that patriarchy is a product of class society. Insofar as it fails to make a connection between the oppression of women and class, it is inherently opposed to communism. I think also that Rise Like Lions summed it up quite well on the first page.
The issue from the start in discussions like this is that ‘feminism’ is not defined in any concrete way. It is often simply taken as a synonym for opposition to sexism/the oppression of women - this was my view of it for a long time until very recently, and so I was always quite taken aback by leftists who expressed opposition to it.

What further complicates things, as this thread hints at, is that a lot of people claiming to take the Marxist line in opposition to feminism do so as a way of downplaying (or completely denying, as Meridian has done - in this thread and in many others) that the oppression of women even exists. This is thoroughly disgusting and reactionary - how somehow can deny the oppression of women out of one side of their mouth while spouting slogans about opposing divisiveness out of the other is really remarkable in its hypocrisy and ignorance. And this sort of attitude was for a long time my only exposure to leftist critiques of feminism. When I was involved with syndicalism, for example, my “comrades” employed this line not only in defense of their own disgustingly blatant sexism but also as an absurd rationale for marginalizing and quite openly ridiculing all issues with any specific relation to working class women. It’s taken me a lot longer than it probably should have because of that experience to actually break away from the idea that every leftist who takes a line in opposition to Feminism must have similar motivations for taking it. And I suspect a lot of women who have been involved in radical politics have had similar experiences, and it has the effect of pushing radicalizing working class women toward feminism, even though the Feminist movement has historically not represented them or their interests. For all of these reasons, I think it is very important for genuine communists who take the Marxist line in opposition to Feminism to express unequivocally that they are opposed to male chauvinism and sexism and that these are things they take seriously - but that the oppression of women is inextricably bound up with capitalism and class society and so the only way to genuinely achieve women's liberation is through international socialist revolution, and that this can only be achieved by the working class.

counterblast

1st March 2010, 17:23

Meridian

1st March 2010, 20:57

(or completely denying, as Meridian has done - in this thread and in many others) that the oppression of women even existsExcuse me? I have done no such thing, that's completely false.

I have said multiple times that feminism as a historical phenomena has been prominently progressive. I have said multiple times, in this very thread, that I support equality between sexes, and that I am an anti-sexist. It is completely different to reject the term feminism because it is in fact, sexist, and to reject feminism on the basis of the belief that discrimination of women doesn't exist.

Obviously discrimination of women exists. It is a constant and real factor in, I think, most women's lives. Of course, in some countries it has more obvious representations than in others. But, and the problem is, that male discrimination exists too. This is not called male discrimination, or even sexism. It is called by a whole variety of different factors. As I tried to outline above, feminism as an ideology tends to look away from marxism, and divide society into male/female instead of class relations, social relations in terms of production. This causes a paradigm where, amongst other things, the female is the victim, not the working class is the victim. And so it isn't because a woman is working class that she is oppressed and makes less money than "males", it is because she is a woman.

So, to summarize because I am in hurry; my beef with feminism is not that it is "too" radical, or because discrimination doesn't exist. It's that it isn't radical enough and doesn't recognize the limits it sets on itself (or, rather, feminists) through the paradigm above.

bcbm

1st March 2010, 22:37

As I tried to outline above, feminism as an ideology tends to look away from marxism, and divide society into male/female instead of class relations, social relations in terms of production. This causes a paradigm where, amongst other things, the female is the victim, not the working class is the victim. And so it isn't because a woman is working class that she is oppressed and makes less money than "males", it is because she is a woman.this paragraph basically sums up the problems many communist feminists have had with the traditional marxist outlook, which tends to treat gender issues as irrelevant. are you suggesting here that women don't experience any form of discrimination simply because they are women?

obviously class is the dominant factor determining exploitation in our society but the "women's struggle" is not a separate one, but in fact a class struggle as well. women are workers as well, but their exploitation often takes different form than men's and so must be examined in its own right. as one italian writer puts it, gender is "a specification of class relations."

StalinFanboy

1st March 2010, 22:44

Some feminists promote prostitution as liberation. In my opinion prostitution is a bi product of women not having equal access to the means of production. Just like wage slavery it is done under threat of starvation. In a communist society why would a woman choose to be objectified by some sweaty hairy man? This is one area I think Emma Goldman went wrong.Edit: I left men out because the topic is on feminism. Prostitution is obviously not limited to women. At least not in the Tenderloin/Polk/Capp St. Also, why do you think, during the Spanish revolution, anarchists told people they no longer had to be prostitutes? [just in case my comment is being seen as sexist-which it is not].
It's a bi-product of people being forced into extreme poverty. If a woman chooses to be a prostitute, then that's her choice. I know a lot of sex workers that genuinely enjoy what they do.

I think it's important for people to move away from this paternalistic view. Obviously, we should show support for women who are forced into prostitution and wish to leave, but for those that genuinely enjoy what they do, then there should be no problem. Instead, we should be looking at the problem of sexuality being commodified.

Nwoye

1st March 2010, 22:56

bcbm

2nd March 2010, 00:10

Perhaps I'm uneducated on the subject but it seems that a major tenant of this movement meant to empower women was incorporating them into the labor force, and this just happened to occur simultaneously with an increase in living costs and decrease in real wages.

i think it would be more accurate to say waged labor force. unwaged labor is still labor.

bricolage

2nd March 2010, 00:28

but that the oppression of women is inextricably bound up with capitalism and class society and so the only way to genuinely achieve women's liberation is through international socialist revolution, and that this can only be achieved by the working class.

Surely patriarchy predates capitalism? While I'm not accusing you of this I do often find that simply reducing all gender inequalities to capitalism is a convenient way to not challenge them in the present. Post-capitalism I'm of the strong opinion that patriarchy (and white privilege for example) could still exist and this is something that needs to be acknowledged.

Wolf Larson

2nd March 2010, 00:56

It's a bi-product of people being forced into extreme poverty. If a woman chooses to be a prostitute, then that's her choice. I know a lot of sex workers that genuinely enjoy what they do.

I think it's important for people to move away from this paternalistic view. Obviously, we should show support for women who are forced into prostitution and wish to leave, but for those that genuinely enjoy what they do, then there should be no problem. Instead, we should be looking at the problem of sexuality being commodified.
Just as people enjoy being wage slaves? I can find thousands of people, millions of people who will say they enjoy their job BUT if they did not have to do it they would not do it. Watch the entire video please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y7zobJ7ZPc

There was nothing paternalistic about my original statement. If you paid attention I said men and women should be prostitutes if they want to so long as they could just as easily provide sustenance via other means and quite honestly I don't think you know that many prostitutes. I've lived in west Oakland for going on 4 years and lived in the Tenderloin for 4 years before and can honestly tell you most of the women/men/young boys I met selling their bodies were not happy about doing it. The people you're talking about are probably white middle class call girls who are motivated by materialism. Shopping. If people could make just as much money or provide sustenance and be just as comfortable NOT being a prostitute most would not do it. There are some exceptions for sure as some people are nymphomaniacs but most prostitutes I've met [and I've known a few within my circle of friends] don't enjoy it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehzC937Q9Dc

Nwoye

2nd March 2010, 02:19

i think it would be more accurate to say waged labor force. unwaged labor is still labor.
yeah you're right.

Nwoye

2nd March 2010, 02:22

Surely patriarchy predates capitalism? While I'm not accusing you of this I do often find that simply reducing all gender inequalities to capitalism is a convenient way to not challenge them in the present. Post-capitalism I'm of the strong opinion that patriarchy (and white privilege for example) could still exist and this is something that needs to be acknowledged.
It's not that patriarchy is a direct result of capitalism but rather a direct result of class society in general, of which capitalism is one form. After the Neolithic Revolution jobs done by males took over primary importance in society and and power was subsequently concentrated in the hands of men, since they were doing all of the "important" work. Hence, patriarchy.

3rd March 2010, 10:24

Surely patriarchy predates capitalism?
I have never said it doesn't predate capitalism; what it doesn't predate, though, is private property.

While I'm not accusing you of this...
I would certainly hope not, as you would have no basis for doing so.

...I do often find that simply reducing all gender inequalities to capitalism is a convenient way to not challenge them in the present.

:confused: That was the point of practically my entire post, though...? Which is why I emphasized that communists who reject Feminism need to make unequivocally clear that they oppose male chauvinism and sexism.

Post-capitalism I'm of the strong opinion that patriarchy (and white privilege for example) could still exist and this is something that needs to be acknowledged.

I don't know how long it would take - post-revolution - for the ideological remnants of bourgeois society to wither away completely and I don't see the use in speculating about it. But the oppression of women ("patriarchy") and racism are both products of economic conditions, as well as the need of the ruling class to divide workers; they are not forces unto themselves, and they do not exist independently of class society - they are not omnipotent.

"Feminism" is about the utter dissemination of gender -- not the preservation or liberation of a single one.

Do you think this is possible without first eliminating the conditions which give rise to the present forms of "gender roles", though?

The Ungovernable Farce

3rd March 2010, 17:30

Do you think this is possible without first eliminating the conditions which give rise to the present forms of "gender roles", though?
Did Counterblast claim that it was? (Not that I'm claiming to speak for them or anything, I'm sure they're more than capable of defending themselves.) And do you think that eliminating those conditions will immediately lead to their abolition?

4th March 2010, 02:56

Did Counterblast claim that it was? (Not that I'm claiming to speak for them or anything, I'm sure they're more than capable of defending themselves.)
S/he didn’t say anything of it; that is why I asked.

And do you think that eliminating those conditions will immediately lead to their abolition?

Nope. I think it would be a gradual withering away, and I think that would be the time that “the utter dissemination of gender” could really be the most effective. But within the framework of capitalism, I don’t believe it is actually possible in any meaningful way for the working class. You can’t cure the symptoms by separating them from the disease which causes them; you have to cure the disease to relieve the symptoms.
None of this is to say sexism isn’t a big deal or should be shrugged off or that we shouldn‘t pay attention to it; I‘ve tried to be pretty clear about that, as that was my main problem with the Marxist position when I was still defining ‘feminism’ completely subjectively. Though its funny, I think this entire debate is largely an issue of semantics as the only thing that has changed is my analysis of the history of the feminist movement (whereas before I had no analysis of it); my position has not really changed - it has long been that the oppression of women was a product of class society and couldn‘t be overcome within the framework of capitalism. It doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be addressed. It just means that it shouldn’t be disconnected from the class struggle.

Frank Zapatista

4th March 2010, 13:49

Yes, because men are o so often discriminated against because of their gender?

I lot of the "anti-Feminism" people in this conversation are showing their ignorance but can y'all at least be honest?
Are you saying men arnt being discriminated against? Why then do I have to pay more on my car insurance simply because im a man? You obviously dont know what your talking about. Both men and woman can be discriminated against because of gender.

Jazzratt

4th March 2010, 15:55

Are you saying men arnt being discriminated against? Why then do I have to pay more on my car insurance simply because im a man? You obviously dont know what your talking about. Both men and woman can be discriminated against because of gender.

:rolleyes: You pay more on car insurance, women earn less than you even in the same fucking job - they're effectively paying more simply for having the wrong bloody genitals. while it's true that patriarchy can, and does, hurt men too it doesn't mean men don't have comparatively more privelege.

Idiotic "what about us men" twattery like this helps no one and means nothing.

counterblast

5th March 2010, 19:07

Do you think this is possible without first eliminating the conditions which give rise to the present forms of "gender roles", though?

Do you really think that things like sexism and transphobia manifest themselves only in capitalist culture?

I'm all for the "worker's rev", but if I'm expected to sit back and let a bunch of straight, white (cis)dudes carry it out and dominate it "in the meantime, so that we can create the conditions necessary to address sexism", it seems as reactionary as to me as voting -- because as with voting, you're passively replicating the situation you claim to be fighting, and replacing the certainty of self- articulation with a faith in representation.

Yes, I said it; destroying capitalism isn't possible until communist and anarchist (cis)men are willing to acknowledge the system of patriarchy they uphold internally (instead of ALWAYS viewing oppression as some "outside" force). Class struggle will continue to be a homogeneous, exclusive white boys club until it recognizes a diversity of oppressions. Call me a Nazifeminist all you want.

khad

5th March 2010, 19:29

There was nothing paternalistic about my original statement. If you paid attention I said men and women should be prostitutes if they want to so long as they could just as easily provide sustenance via other means and quite honestly I don't think you know that many prostitutes. I've lived in west Oakland for going on 4 years and lived in the Tenderloin for 4 years before and can honestly tell you most of the women/men/young boys I met selling their bodies were not happy about doing it. The people you're talking about are probably white middle class call girls who are motivated by materialism. Shopping. If people could make just as much money or provide sustenance and be just as comfortable NOT being a prostitute most would not do it. There are some exceptions for sure as some people are nymphomaniacs but most prostitutes I've met [and I've known a few within my circle of friends] don't enjoy it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehzC937Q9Dc
Fact: most prostitutes are drug addicts. There is nothing free about their "choice." In fact this entire rhetoric about choice in such an exploitative line of work is a libertarian fantasy that has no place on the left.

Thanks for bringing reality into the discussion.

Dean

5th March 2010, 19:44

:rolleyes: You pay more on car insurance, women earn less than you even in the same fucking job - they're effectively paying more simply for having the wrong bloody genitals. while it's true that patriarchy can, and does, hurt men too it doesn't mean men don't have comparatively more privelege.

Idiotic "what about us men" twattery like this helps no one and means nothing.

It's absolutely important to address issues wherein men are discriminated against. But it is downright reactionary to reject womens' claims of discrimination "in defense" of that position.

Discrimination against men is always tied into systemic patriarchy and any attempt to resolve this discrimination must also aggressively seek womens' liberation.

counterblast

5th March 2010, 20:06

Fact: most prostitutes are drug addicts. There is nothing free about their "choice." In fact this entire rhetoric about choice in such an exploitative line of work is a libertarian fantasy that has no place on the left.

Thanks for bringing reality into the discussion.

Thanks for bringing blanket statements into the discussion.

Until your statistic is able to suggest "all prostitutes are drug addicts who are in their profession because they are forced to be"; please shut the fuck up.

And that won't be possible as long as I'm alive, because I don't do drugs, I do sex work, I like doing sex work, and I'm far less exploited or tied to the capitalist system than I would be if I was in any other line of work (including my day job working for the city of Detroit).

Yes there is drug addiction among sex workers, and yes, many feel forced into their profession. But I can think of many communities that face high percentages of drug addiction (the gay community, the Black community), and many more workers that feel coerced into their job (practically all of them!).

khad

5th March 2010, 20:11

Until your statistic is able to suggest "all prostitutes are drug addicts who are in their profession because they are forced to be"; please shut the fuck up.
How rich. The pedophile liberationist defender is telling me to shut the fuck up.

Jazzratt

6th March 2010, 03:22

Discrimination against men is always tied into systemic patriarchy and any attempt to resolve this discrimination must also aggressively seek womens' liberation.

Absolutely. I think any disadvantage men suffer under patriachal systems i better served by feminism/anti-capitalism than by individual mens' right activism campaigns. To put it simply: Sexism against men will dissapear once we deal with sexism against women, a part of capitalism.

Physicist

6th March 2010, 18:00

Meridian

6th March 2010, 18:23

Generalizing the attitude of a single organization based on the fact most are conservative naysayers is a tad unfair. I witnessed a feminist organization at our local college transform itself into male-oriented programs by the decree of mostly women as it was legitimately concerned with the exclusionary politics employed by certain women to restrict male activities beyond the scope of what's acceptable to a gender egalitarian. It was mostly a matter of redundancy... the college had two feminist organizations ... but it was an interesting turnabout. I view these men and women as true feminists as they want to eradicate oppression of women and its cultural aftereffects from both ends. The males within this organization aren't patriarchs, but men who are concerned about the fact their brothers are taught to kill one another, hide their emotions, and not be involved in their child's livelihood after a divorce. There is nothing wrong with that, and it most certainly is an ignored subject.
Exactly, thanks for your insight.

I think it is more worrisome when people seem to have an affliction against the notion of males being oppressed. They seem to accept that many males are oppressed, but "not because they are males". Exactly the same picture can be painted of women. "Those women are not oppressed, it is because they are working class they make shit money", "Those women are not oppressed, it is because they make that and that choice", etc., etc.

7th March 2010, 00:44

Do you really think that things like sexism and transphobia manifest themselves only in capitalist culture?

No, as I have said several times now, the oppression of women - and consequently all oppression based upon gender and sexuality IMO - originated with private property.

I'm all for the "worker's rev", but if I'm expected to sit back and let a bunch of straight, white (cis)dudes carry it out and dominate it "in the meantime, so that we can create the conditions necessary to address sexism"

I have never said anyone should wait for anything to address sexism; in fact, I have said exactly the opposite. It was the main point of my first post in this thread. Why does it feel like people are willfully misunderstanding my point?

Yes, I said it; destroying capitalism isn't possible until communist and anarchist (cis)men are willing to acknowledge the system of patriarchy they uphold internally (instead of ALWAYS viewing oppression as some "outside" force). Class struggle will continue to be a homogeneous, exclusive white boys club until it recognizes a diversity of oppressions. Call me a Nazifeminist all you want.

“The system of patriarchy they uphold internally” is a product of class society. Male chauvinism pisses me off as much as anyone else, and I’m far from patient with it, but what you are suggesting is not possible. It is like saying workers will have to rid themselves of every internal reflection of class society before they can rid the world of class society. But what is creating the internal reflection of class society if not class society itself?

Physicist

7th March 2010, 01:11

Yes, I said it; destroying capitalism isn't possible until communist and anarchist (cis)men are willing to acknowledge the system of patriarchy they uphold internally (instead of ALWAYS viewing oppression as some "outside" force). Class struggle will continue to be a homogeneous, exclusive white boys club until it recognizes a diversity of oppressions. Call me a Nazifeminist all you want. This is true of everyone, not just heterosexual cismen. Feminist women can be and oftentimes are slaves to patriarchy's lasting influence. This can manifest itself even in seemingly insignificant situations like feeling strange about stages in relationship development being led by women... paying for the date, first kiss, proposal.. to much more obvious examples.

Sendo

7th March 2010, 10:26

I want to mention to khad that prostitution is not the same everywhere. In cases where there is exploitation and addiction and pimping et al, the women should be freed from that whole "profession", but it's not like all are drug addicts. Expensive call girls in developed countries being examples. In South Korea, for one, outside of the rich and rightist heartland of Busan and parts of Seoul where there is trafficking of Russians, Mongolians, and Philippine women, for the most part hookers are off the street, (even in bad areas they are rarely visible from the street), and can take in quite a bit of money as an "extra service" at cafe and singing rooms and the like. In small towns it can be very common and often doesn't involve the whole deal.

I don't know the whole story, but some are definitely "less exploited" than others, especially when the people and the police in a society look the other way. Obviously it would be best if they could have steady employment in more productive labor offered by the state, but there are definitely many shades to it. Prostitute women in Western Siberia and the women Spitzer and Woods were getting are light-years apart.

I do see prostitution as something we should dispense of, of course, and it would be nice if common people could meet easily and socialize and have healthy relationships and not resort to hiring a prostitute...but it's complex. I'd say the young girls who have to doll themselves up, maybe get pressured into plastic surgery, and stand around dopey and smiling in skimpy outfits in retail for shit wages suffer more than call girls who pull in $250 per visit in rural cities.

Little Bobby Hutton

7th March 2010, 15:32

feminism is just a symptom of marxism, as sexism is a symptom of fuedalism and capitalism.

counterblast

8th March 2010, 17:03

N
“The system of patriarchy they uphold internally” is a product of class society. Male chauvinism pisses me off as much as anyone else, and I’m far from patient with it, but what you are suggesting is not possible. It is like saying workers will have to rid themselves of every internal reflection of class society before they can rid the world of class society. But what is creating the internal reflection of class society if not class society itself?

I am not saying we have to rid one before the other; quite the contrary, I am suggesting we integrate them as interconnected/overlapping but mutually exclusive. The theory that class is the only motivation for racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism or that capitalism is the sole cause is totally unfounded.

I can't help but feel most communists are stuck in 1930, still commodifying people of color and womyn as objects of legitimation to diminish their post-imperialist guilt and justify their workers rev.

We are not merely objects to be used on t-shirts. "Women -- we can’t have the revolution without ‘em", and "Black and White Unite and Fight" are just shallow representations that might appeal to feel-good liberals; but I'm not convinced.

Talk is cheap. If I only see some speckles of color in a sea of whiteness or if I'm expected to work with a rapist when I attend a rally, I don't give a fuck how much verbal "solidarity" I'm extended or what I'm promised "after the revolution".

9th March 2010, 22:28

I am not saying we have to rid one before the other; quite the contrary, I am suggesting we integrate them as interconnected/overlapping but mutually exclusive

And I think separating the working class struggle from the struggle for women’s liberation is exactly the wrong course of action. I think in the US, the past half century and the legacy of New Left politics can attest to the abysmal failure of such a "strategy". Working class women have more in common with working class men than they do with bourgeois women. Bourgeois women have a material interest in maintaining capitalism, and consequently in maintaining class society. Therefore, bourgeois women have a material interest in maintaining the oppression of women. The working class as a whole - regardless of sex/gender - has a material interest in overthrowing capitalism, and consequently in ending class society. Therefore, the working class as a whole has a material interest in ending the oppression of women, and it is the only class with the capability to do so.

The theory that class is the only motivation for racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism or that capitalism is the sole cause is totally unfounded.

And again, as I have said many, many times, capitalism is not the cause; private property - and consequently class society - is the cause, and capitalism is the present stage of class society. And that theory is corroborated by a wealth of anthropological and other scientific data.

I can't help but feel most communists are stuck in 1930, still commodifying people of color and womyn as objects of legitimation to diminish their post-imperialist guilt and justify their workers rev.

We are not merely objects to be used on t-shirts. "Women -- we can’t have the revolution without ‘em", and "Black and White Unite and Fight" are just shallow representations that might appeal to feel-good liberals; but I'm not convinced.

Talk is cheap. If I only see some speckles of color in a sea of whiteness or if I'm expected to work with a rapist when I attend a rally, I don't give a fuck how much verbal "solidarity" I'm extended or what I'm promised "after the revolution".

These are mostly appeals to emotion and not actual arguments; I think I addressed the actual argument above.
Also, the presumptuous tone isn't really working out for you in this instance, seeing as I am a woman myself. So you might consider dropping it.

black magick hustla

9th March 2010, 23:23

We are not merely objects to be used on t-shirts. "Women -- we can’t have the revolution without ‘em", and "Black and White Unite and Fight" are just shallow representations that might appeal to feel-good liberals; but I'm not convinced.

Talk is cheap. If I only see some speckles of color in a sea of whiteness or if I'm expected to work with a rapist when I attend a rally, I don't give a fuck how much verbal "solidarity" I'm extended or what I'm promised "after the revolution".

oh shut up.

i am a mexican and i reject all sorts of identity politics. the politics you expouse are just the product of bored lit crit academics.

i mean, so what is your solution? operate from the idea that you are a woman and you are of color? write poetry about the fact that you are a woman and are of color? identity is a bad dream

Meridian

9th March 2010, 23:24

I can't help but feel most communists are stuck in 1930, still commodifying people of color and womyn as objects of legitimation to diminish their post-imperialist guilt and justify their workers rev.
Why are you making baseless claims like that?

Sexism, racism, various other forms of discrimination, did not originate with capitalism.

But neither did currency, the state, or classes.

It is the program of communism, and of communists, to eliminate ALL the above.

Communist Sickle

22nd March 2010, 03:26

Technically Communism doesn't cover full equality in the sense of gender.
i.e. In the good ol' days of Communism women weren't allowed to join the army (except certain non-combat roles).
But Communism unlike Capitalism supports Chivalry.

counterblast

23rd March 2010, 04:57

And I think separating the working class struggle from the struggle for women’s liberation is exactly the wrong course of action. I think in the US, the past half century and the legacy of New Left politics can attest to the abysmal failure of such a "strategy". Working class women have more in common with working class men than they do with bourgeois women. Bourgeois women have a material interest in maintaining capitalism, and consequently in maintaining class society. Therefore, bourgeois women have a material interest in maintaining the oppression of women. The working class as a whole - regardless of sex/gender - has a material interest in overthrowing capitalism, and consequently in ending class society. Therefore, the working class as a whole has a material interest in ending the oppression of women, and it is the only class with the capability to do so.

And again, as I have said many, many times, capitalism is not the cause; private property - and consequently class society - is the cause, and capitalism is the present stage of class society. And that theory is corroborated by a wealth of anthropological and other scientific data.

Also, the presumptuous tone isn't really working out for you in this instance, seeing as I am a woman myself. So you might consider dropping it.

First, I deny any "presumptuous tone".

To work towards any collective political change, you must not only be cognizant of the fact that the everyday realities of certain communities within the working class are on uneven parity, but be willing to offer immediate solutions to this problem.

Only by dealing with the total social condition of the suffering masses --rather than equating it to class-- can you begin to recognize the class composition within a given population. To cast your sights solely on capitalist attempts to monopolize the world while putting all other problems are on the political backburner is not productive.

In other words, the "wait and see" methodology often (not always) embraced by communists and to a lesser extent anarchists by prioritizing class concerns above all else, ends up undermining the lives, experiences and self-determination of the social/political minorities who are the "working class".

Unless you address the social situation rather than merely the economic one, most folks of color, women, queers, trans folks, differently-able bodied folks, and a myriad of others won't be asking "How do I join your worker's party?" but rather "Why would I join your worker's party or take any interest in your class analysis, when I can't even get a job?"

black magick hustla

23rd March 2010, 07:14

[QUOTE=counterblast;1700692 when I can't even get a job?"[/QUOTE]
I think this is the point of class analysis.

sponsoredwalk

26th March 2010, 19:35

oh for fucks sake.

feminism is about equality. anyone who says that they want rule by women, isnt a feminist. any more than someone who wants to subjugate white people is not a racist.

you may think that there are crazy people calling themselves feminists out there (all sex is rape for example), but, that does not mean you dont call yourself feminist. any more than the crazy people calling themselves marxists does not stop you calling yourself a marxist.

all communists are feminists, because feminism wants equality for all, regardless of gender, and communists want equality for all, regardless of anything else.

I don't know why this conversation has continued after this rebuttal was so eloquently put!

Oh, and by "the good ol' days of communism", I assume you aren't referring to when Russian peasants had to eat their family members rotting carcasses...

feminism is just a symptom of marxism, as sexism is a symptom of fuedalism and capitalism.

I never realised basic human equality originated with Marxism and is just an ideological knock off...

Comrade Akai

1st April 2010, 04:01

I'm a feminist, and a male. What you're referring to as being "not communist" are the feminazis. They're extremist old dingbats.

Ztrain

10th April 2010, 03:08

10th April 2010, 12:59

Feminism itself is a communist virtue,however feminism has created an anti male sexist climate
Example #1:Men are called "pig" when they talk with lust abot a woman and yet I hear girls talking about Taylor Lautner all the time
It's possible that those girls could be shallow - and given the demographic that watches Twilight, they probably were.

Crux

10th April 2010, 16:47

It's possible that those girls could be shallow - and given the demographic that watches Twilight, they probably were.You know something else that's shallow? Calling that an "anti male sexist climate".

Meridian

10th April 2010, 17:25

You know something else that's shallow? Calling that an "anti male sexist climate".
Please feel free to expound...

The Ben G

10th April 2010, 17:26

It matters, If the Feminist blames men for everything, then of course it isnt communist. Not all of feminists are like that, though. Feminism is a very left Ideology.

cska

10th April 2010, 18:57

It matters, If the Feminist blames men for everything, then of course it isnt communist. Not all of feminists are like that, though. Feminism is a very left Ideology.

Honestly, I think men do deserve a large part of the blame for everything...

The Ben G

10th April 2010, 19:11

Honestly, I think men do deserve a large part of the blame for everything...

I agree with you, but I think that the ones that the Feminazis take it WAY to far.

10th April 2010, 20:27

Honestly, I think men do deserve a large part of the blame for everything...
What does this even mean? lol class divisions who cares right?

Meridian

10th April 2010, 22:24

Honestly, I think men do deserve a large part of the blame for everything...
The problem with this is that you use a word that is completely out of place in the context of the sentence. What is "men" supposed to refer to here? A man is a person with a cock. Now, how is that the problem? Because that is what you are referring to.

Invincible Summer

11th April 2010, 00:03

The problem with this is that you use a word that is completely out of place in the context of the sentence. What is "men" supposed to refer to here? A man is a person with a cock. Now, how is that the problem? Because that is what you are referring to.

I'm not trying to answer for cska, but you bring up a good point. Lots of those feminists who we would classify as "feminazis" - actual man-haters that may even turn to forced lesbianism - hate anyone that has a penis. This is really problematic and stupid because it's not the inherent penis-ness that is the problem.

The problem is the socially constructed definitions of what "masculinity" and "femininity" are. Although the latter has changed somewhat over time, I'd be hard-pressed to find ways how "masculinity" has changed over history. Of course, this is a Eurocentric perspective, although I suspect it's pretty similar in other parts of the world.

The socially constructed definition of "masculinity" still seems to have roots in evolutionary theory - men should be strong, protective, aggressive, etc because that's how we needed to be to survive 100000 years ago. Well, now that's obviously not the case, but people still see "manliness" as being these same things. I think that because these characteristics are still being upheld as "what a man should be," it enforces the stratification of "man vs woman," even if the role of women has been changing.

Actually, it might even make conflict between men and women worse. As women's roles become more equivalent to that of men, I can imagine some people trying to ensure that the distinction between men and women is still there, and making the definition of "man" more strict.

Okay I went on a tangent, and totally didn't answer the question. Oh well.

I have a question though: because women's rights and feminist struggle has tried to get women equal rights and opportunities to men, does this inherently suggest that men are superior, and women have to play "catch up?" Or is it more of a response to the socio-cultural subjugation of women?

Crux

11th April 2010, 02:12

cska

11th April 2010, 02:25

I agree with you, but I think that the ones that the Feminazis take it WAY to far.

Yeah you are right that some of them are crazy. The problem is that sometimes legitimate feminists are treated like the feminazis. Not entirely unlike how communists are mixed up with fascists.

What does this even mean? lol class divisions who cares right?

The class divisions are the cause for the sexism. The men are the tools through which sexism is created.

The problem with this is that you use a word that is completely out of place in the context of the sentence. What is "men" supposed to refer to here? A man is a person with a cock. Now, how is that the problem? Because that is what you are referring to.

Great, thanks for defining "men" for me. Yes, that is what I am referring to. Now, people with penises are usually oppressive to those without.

I have a question though: because women's rights and feminist struggle has tried to get women equal rights and opportunities to men, does this inherently suggest that men are superior, and women have to play "catch up?" Or is it more of a response to the socio-cultural subjugation of women?

I think it is the later, that we need women's rights to catch up precisely because it is their rights that are lagging in current society.

11th April 2010, 02:30

Another point that should be raised is that of Maculism. Should communists be both masculists and feminists? Is this even possible? Or is masculism just some big lie to stamp out feminism?

It seems necessary that communists should give men and women equal rights and legal protection...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism)

Meridian

11th April 2010, 02:55

Great, thanks for defining "men" for me. Yes, that is what I am referring to. Now, people with penises are usually oppressive to those without.
Is this a joke or did you miss my point entirely?

What you are alleging is that people discriminate because they have penises. Because they are men, because of their birth. If this is not sexism then I have yet to ever see any.

The men are the tools through which sexism is created.
Yes, and pandas are the promulgators of oppression (a claim unfounded). Such a huge distinction, that 50% of the population are the tools through which sexism is created, needs to be backed up somehow. Unless, of course, you are directing this to specific groups 'not quite' 50% of the population. But, then you are using the wrong term since you are clearly not referring to all men.

Invincible Summer

11th April 2010, 03:00

And lots of erstwhile pretty sensible male left wingers turn into complete liberals when it comes to feminism. Or worse. "Feminazis"? Forced lesbianism?
But yes, male gender roles are oppressive too of course, as they are part of a structural oppression.

I'm just using the terminology that has been previously used in this thread. And yes, there are women who hate men so much that they choose to enter homosexual relationships. Not saying that it's wrong, but it's definitely an interesting move, especially for those who were previously heterosexual.

But why are male gender roles part of structural oppression, as opposed to female gender roles?

Sometimes I feel like it's too easy to just go "Yeah, problem is capitalist society. End of question."

Another point that should be raised is that of Maculinism. Should communists be both masculinists and feminists? Is this even possible? Or is masculinism just some big lie to stamp out feminism?

It seems necessary that communists should give men and women equal rights and legal protection...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism

The "men's rights movement" generally promotes "masculinism." I think it's pretty reactionary, as they seem to have this "feminism to an extent" viewpoint. They talk about how women are dominating men and chivalry is subjugating men, etc.

11th April 2010, 03:15

The "men's rights movement" generally promotes "masculinism." I think it's pretty reactionary, as they seem to have this "feminism to an extent" viewpoint. They talk about how women are dominating men and chivalry is subjugating men, etc.
You're addressing masculism in a similar fashion to how many men address feminism. Remember to judge ideologies by themselves - not as some have attempted to try them. Otherwise you should just go say "communism never works" and walk away from Revleft.

Read the page, masculists do address good points. Feminism and masculism both seek to remove the inequalities between each other. In my opinion, any socialist should be both.

cska

11th April 2010, 08:35

Is this a joke or did you miss my point entirely?

What you are alleging is that people discriminate because they have penises. Because they are men, because of their birth. If this is not sexism then I have yet to ever see any.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said "I think men do deserve a large part of the blame for everything." In other words a random male, at least in the United States, has an extremely high likelihood of contributing significantly to sexism. Now, correlation does not imply causation. So saying that they are contributing to sexism "because" they are men is not what I said.

Yes, and pandas are the promulgators of oppression (a claim unfounded). Such a huge distinction, that 50% of the population are the tools through which sexism is created, needs to be backed up somehow. Unless, of course, you are directing this to specific groups 'not quite' 50% of the population. But, then you are using the wrong term since you are clearly not referring to all men.

The vast majority of males I have met have been significantly sexist. And that is a rather diverse sample of American males. I could google some statistics to back my argument, but of course there will also be statistics against my contention, as statistics can be used to prove pretty much anything you like. So, instead, I will leave it up to people to judge wether males in society are the tools through which sexism rears its ugly head.

Invincible Summer

11th April 2010, 08:53

You're addressing masculism in a similar fashion to how many men address feminism. Remember to judge ideologies by themselves - not as some have attempted to try them. Otherwise you should just go say "communism never works" and walk away from Revleft.

The difference is I know that communism hasn't been implemented. And almost all of these "men's rights" groups want fairness for both men and women, but feel that women are oppressing men in some way.

Read the page, masculists do address good points. Feminism and masculism both seek to remove the inequalities between each other. In my opinion, any socialist should be both.

Okay lets do this:

Violence

Masculist concerns focus on societal acceptance of violence harming men paired with the stigma against violence harming women, as well as males being taught or expected to take on violent roles.

Violence against men minimalized or taken less seriously than violence against women

I'd argue that men are more able to defend themselves, and most violence is perpetrated by men anyway, so men (physically stronger) attacking women (physically weaker) is looked down upon more.

Women are more violent than men in some research studies asking both men and women.

The report seemed to be asking about level of violence in domestic abuse (e.g. kicking vs pushing). Again, men are seen to be more able to defend themselves vs women, so violence against women is considered more unacceptable.

Depiction of violence against men as humorous, in the media[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism#cite_note-MYTH-6) and elsewhere (see Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them%21)), when women are also violent.

I don't know if this is a typo, but yes women can be violent too. Thanks for the tip. What does this have to do with violence against men in the media? The only time violence is seen as humorous is like.. slapstick comedy and stuff like that. If you're going to get your pants in a knot because of that then you are just really clawing for something.

Assumption of female innocence or sympathy for women, which may result in problems such as disproportionate penalties for men and women for similar crimes,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism#cite_note-MYTH-6) lack of sympathy for male victims in domestic violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence) cases, and dismissal of female-on-male rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) cases.

Again, sympathy for women because they generally are physically weaker and men know this. It's the same reason why people frown upon imperialism - it's a stronger power dominating a weaker for whatever reason.

In terms of female-on-male rape, they're pretty rare so that's like saying "Society needs to help people who want unicorns to be real! People don't understand that there is a real need for this!"

Societal failure to address prison rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape), including issues such as prevention (e.g., reducing prison crowding that requires sharing of cells), impunity for prison rapists, and even correctional staff punishing prisoners by confining them with known rapists.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism#cite_note-7) Attention has been drawn to portrayals of male rape by women, or implied rape, as humorous.

I think the failure to address prison rape is due to a lack of societal concern or sympathy for criminals (or supposed criminals) in general, not because it's some conspiracy against men.

I don't know any portrayals of women raping men in the media, especially not humorous ones.

Circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) (characterized as harmless tradition by some, and as male genital mutilation by others) being advocated while female genital mutilation is prohibited, although both practices are purported to reduce sexual pleasure and expose the patient to possible health problems

I guess this is fair enough, but AFAIK it's not mandatory in the West (where female genital mutilation is prohibited), and only religious folk really care about that, so it's not a problem of society practicing misandry, but rather stupid religious shit and parents forcing it upon their children because some doctors say it's better.
Parenting

This is the section where I do agree it's unfair.

Discrimination (This section seems redundant since the others are about discrimination and covers the same issues.)

Social concerns

Increasing suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) rate among young men, four times higher than among young women

This is because suicide rate measures actual suicides, not attempted ones. Women carry out just as many if not more attempted suicides as men, but they usually choose "softer" methods (e.g. pills), as opposed to slitting their wrists or shooting themselves or hanging themselves.

It's usually seen as socially acceptable for a female to try out or follow masculine social norms, whereas if a male does the same for feminine social norms they often attract unwanted attention and are victims of ridicule, insult, harassment and threatening behavior.

I'm pretty sure this ridicule comes from other men. Yes, it's a problem, but it lies in definitions of what "masculinity" and "femininity" mean, not necessarily any sort of inequality.

Lack of advocacy for men's rights; little domestic abuse support for men

Wtf? Isn't this whole issue about men's rights? Why is this considered a point?

Bias in health concerns; for example, more advertisements and awareness for breast cancer than prostate cancer, though both cancers kill approximately the same number of people each year.

*shrugs* Not sure what to think of that. Doctors treat both equally, so I don't see what the huge problem is.

Incarceration for not paying child support, particularly for unwanted children, in contrast to women's right to abort (see Male abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_abortion))
Special government agencies for women's affairs with no corresponding agencies for men's affairs
Lack of legal ramifications or enforcement for paternity fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud)

Fair enough
Education

Lack of educational aid for boys and men, given that their performance/enrollment at most levels lags behind that of girls and women; some[which? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] states declaring (de jure or de facto) all-male schools illegal and all-female schools legal.

Where I live and go to school, educational aid is the same for everyone, there is no preferential treatment or anything. We have both all-male and all-female schools that are private schools.

There is concern that some university (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education) women's studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_studies) departments are more concerned with teaching feminist ideology than equality of gender. The content and emphasis of these courses vary, and some even discuss "masculinities"; but masculists fear that many such courses contribute to animosity towards men

Its called women's studies for a goddamned reason.

Some universities also carry men's studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_studies) courses. Some[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] feminists argue that these are redundant, stating that academia throughout history was predominantly focused on men; however, supporters of these courses note that most subjects throughout history have not dealt with gender directly.

While it's true that the courses have not dealt with gender directly, what really is there to know? I mean, almost every name in a history book will be a male name. The definition of "masculine" hasn't really changed either, so that can't really be taught. What would they teach?
Employment

Harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations, such as the army, police and fire service. Requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay

Well, men are stronger. What can I say?

Legal inequality and protections of paternal vs. maternal leav

Way to re-use points. But fair point.

11th April 2010, 09:50

The difference is I know that communism hasn't been implemented. And almost all of these "men's rights" groups want fairness for both men and women, but feel that women are oppressing men in some way.

As I said, judge an ideology by what it is, not as others have attempted to try it out.

Okay lets do this:

Violence

Masculist concerns focus on societal acceptance of violence harming men paired with the stigma against violence harming women, as well as males being taught or expected to take on violent roles.

Violence against men minimalized or taken less seriously than violence against women

I'd argue that men are more able to defend themselves, and most violence is perpetrated by men anyway, so men (physically stronger) attacking women (physically weaker) is looked down upon more.

True. But this point could simply be all up to interpretation and the bias of the observer: i.e., stronger men attacking weaker women = looked down upon vs. stronger women attacking weaker men = not the norm. They're both taking their own perspectives on different arguments. And as much of a minority as they are, there are some very strong women out there and a much larger number of weaker men.

Women are more violent than men in some research studies asking both men and women.

The report seemed to be asking about level of violence in domestic abuse (e.g. kicking vs pushing). Again, men are seen to be more able to defend themselves vs women, so violence against women is considered more unacceptable.

See above response.

Depiction of violence against men as humorous, in the media[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism#cite_note-MYTH-6) and elsewhere (see Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them%21)), when women are also violent.

I don't know if this is a typo, but yes women can be violent too. Thanks for the tip. What does this have to do with violence against men in the media? The only time violence is seen as humorous is like.. slapstick comedy and stuff like that. If you're going to get your pants in a knot because of that then you are just really clawing for something.

In this present climate, the social attitudes of violence towards men probably won't change much. But it may need to be addressed.

Assumption of female innocence or sympathy for women, which may result in problems such as disproportionate penalties for men and women for similar crimes,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism#cite_note-MYTH-6) lack of sympathy for male victims in domestic violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence) cases, and dismissal of female-on-male rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape) cases.

Again, sympathy for women because they generally are physically weaker and men know this. It's the same reason why people frown upon imperialism - it's a stronger power dominating a weaker for whatever reason.

In terms of female-on-male rape, they're pretty rare so that's like saying "Society needs to help people who want unicorns to be real! People don't understand that there is a real need for this!"

Perhaps, and I see your point, but are you willing to let it slide?

Societal failure to address prison rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape), including issues such as prevention (e.g., reducing prison crowding that requires sharing of cells), impunity for prison rapists, and even correctional staff punishing prisoners by confining them with known rapists.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinism#cite_note-7) Attention has been drawn to portrayals of male rape by women, or implied rape, as humorous.

I think the failure to address prison rape is due to a lack of societal concern or sympathy for criminals (or supposed criminals) in general, not because it's some conspiracy against men.

I don't know any portrayals of women raping men in the media, especially not humorous ones.

Agreed.

Circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) (characterized as harmless tradition by some, and as male genital mutilation by others) being advocated while female genital mutilation is prohibited, although both practices are purported to reduce sexual pleasure and expose the patient to possible health problems

I guess this is fair enough, but AFAIK it's not mandatory in the West (where female genital mutilation is prohibited), and only religious folk really care about that, so it's not a problem of society practicing misandry, but rather stupid religious shit and parents forcing it upon their children because some doctors say it's better.

Agreed. But many men do hate being circumcised after they find out about what happened to them later on. It's really quite the same as female circumcision (in terms of it against will) except that for males it's religious.

Social concerns

Increasing suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) rate among young men, four times higher than among young women

This is because suicide rate measures actual suicides, not attempted ones. Women carry out just as many if not more attempted suicides as men, but they usually choose "softer" methods (e.g. pills), as opposed to slitting their wrists or shooting themselves or hanging themselves.

Ok...

It's usually seen as socially acceptable for a female to try out or follow masculine social norms, whereas if a male does the same for feminine social norms they often attract unwanted attention and are victims of ridicule, insult, harassment and threatening behavior.

I'm pretty sure this ridicule comes from other men. Yes, it's a problem, but it lies in definitions of what "masculinity" and "femininity" mean, not necessarily any sort of inequality.

Agreed. This obviously has ties to homophobia and the males' supposed role as a superior sex.

Lack of advocacy for men's rights; little domestic abuse support for men

Wtf? Isn't this whole issue about men's rights? Why is this considered a point?

Haha yeah.

Bias in health concerns; for example, more advertisements and awareness for breast cancer than prostate cancer, though both cancers kill approximately the same number of people each year.

*shrugs* Not sure what to think of that. Doctors treat both equally, so I don't see what the huge problem is.

Neither, actually. I don't think this can be attributed to any bias so much as a lack of funding or something similar. After, what do governments stand to gain by being biased when it comes to cancer awareness?

Education

Lack of educational aid for boys and men, given that their performance/enrollment at most levels lags behind that of girls and women; some[which? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] states declaring (de jure or de facto) all-male schools illegal and all-female schools legal.

Where I live and go to school, educational aid is the same for everyone, there is no preferential treatment or anything. We have both all-male and all-female schools that are private schools.

This might have something to do with the historical idea for women not to be educated, but to know how to maintain a household and fulfill their expected gender role.

There is concern that some university (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education) women's studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_studies) departments are more concerned with teaching feminist ideology than equality of gender. The content and emphasis of these courses vary, and some even discuss "masculinities"; but masculists fear that many such courses contribute to animosity towards men

Its called women's studies for a goddamned reason.

Haha, agreed.

Some universities also carry men's studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_studies) courses. Some[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] feminists argue that these are redundant, stating that academia throughout history was predominantly focused on men; however, supporters of these courses note that most subjects throughout history have not dealt with gender directly.

While it's true that the courses have not dealt with gender directly, what really is there to know? I mean, almost every name in a history book will be a male name. The definition of "masculine" hasn't really changed either, so that can't really be taught. What would they teach?

This business really confuses me. Although I don't see why feminists should be dishing out payback. This is why the world hates the evil femme scum :lol:

Employment

Harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations, such as the army, police and fire service. Requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay

Well, men are stronger. What can I say

Men tend to be stronger. I say the Bourgeoisie are expecting too much and trying to reinforce gender roles.

In conclusion, I think that most masculist arguments deal with isolated cases - and whilst these may be problems, it's not part of a global female conspiracy.
That's right. I just ditched masculism. Oh well.

Meridian

11th April 2010, 14:36

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said "I think men do deserve a large part of the blame for everything." In other words a random male, at least in the United States, has an extremely high likelihood of contributing significantly to sexism. Now, correlation does not imply causation. So saying that they are contributing to sexism "because" they are men is not what I said.
Thanks, and now we agree that there is something other than biological differences (sexes) that is to blame for sexism.

The vast majority of males I have met have been significantly sexist. And that is a rather diverse sample of American males. I could google some statistics to back my argument, but of course there will also be statistics against my contention, as statistics can be used to prove pretty much anything you like. So, instead, I will leave it up to people to judge wether males in society are the tools through which sexism rears its ugly head.
Gender research does show that women perpetuate stereotypes on the 'gender market' (that is, the 'arena for coupling'...) to at least as large a degree as men. Generally, here they have a role of dominance (by which I mean simply of selection), and their choices and attitude here will largely affect what many men will strive for.

I'd argue that men are more able to defend themselves, and most violence is perpetrated by men anyway, so men (physically stronger) attacking women (physically weaker) is looked down upon more.
Well, according to all the professors on gender/sex I've spoken to, men are more frequently the victims of domestic violence than women. They report it less, of course. It is often less physically damaging for them than when a male attacks a woman but, nevertheless, it can be extremely dangerous both physically and mentally. The main problem here is that they are too dignified to report it, to authorities if need be.

I think the failure to address prison rape is due to a lack of societal concern or sympathy for criminals (or supposed criminals) in general, not because it's some conspiracy against men.
I do not think anyone would offer that it's a conspiracy against men. The idea is that instead of being taken seriously it's considered a sort of running joke, while it is a fucking horrible thing. I think some of this is connected to a general image of men as (only) being perpetrators, not victims. I am not saying men are never, or even rarely, perpetrators, I am saying that being a victim is regarded as something which is not manly. This hurts both sexes. Furthermore, the idea that men have the main position of perpetuating negative sexual stereotypes has been largely discredited in gender studies.

cska

11th April 2010, 17:57

Thanks, and now we agree that there is something other than biological differences (sexes) that is to blame for sexism.

Gender research does show that women perpetuate stereotypes on the 'gender market' (that is, the 'arena for coupling'...) to at least as large a degree as men. Generally, here they have a role of dominance (by which I mean simply of selection), and their choices and attitude here will largely affect what many men will strive for.

Well, according to all the professors on gender/sex I've spoken to, men are more frequently the victims of domestic violence than women. They report it less, of course. It is often less physically damaging for them than when a male attacks a woman but, nevertheless, it can be extremely dangerous both physically and mentally. The main problem here is that they are too dignified to report it, to authorities if need be.

I do not think anyone would offer that it's a conspiracy against men. The idea is that instead of being taken seriously it's considered a sort of running joke, while it is a fucking horrible thing. I think some of this is connected to a general image of men as (only) being perpetrators, not victims. I am not saying men are never, or even rarely, perpetrators, I am saying that being a victim is regarded as something which is not manly. This hurts both sexes. Furthermore, the idea that men have the main position of perpetuating negative sexual stereotypes has been largely discredited in gender studies.

Yes, women certainly also participate in causing sexism. However, this sexism generally causes more benefit than harm to males. Additionally, I see women discriminating against women as being less common/extreme than men discriminating against women.

Nevertheless, you are right that many women encourage sexism amongst men. Again, no causation here, just correlation.

As for domestic violence, I think the difference for me is that many women don't have any outside support as they are stuck in the house. On the other hand, men who are the victims of domestic violence still usually work outside the house and can take a sort of emotional "break" from the abuse.

As for prison rape, I think it is several factors. Firstly, people don't care as much about prisoners. However, I don't think that is the sole cause, as if women in prison were being raped i prison, there would be a pretty big outrage. I think it is due to what is probably the aspect of sexism that is most harmful to men: the expectation that men need to be macho and it is up to them not to be victims and to victimize others.

cska

11th April 2010, 19:38

By the way, I view masculinism as being strikingly similar to how conservatives complain about discrimination against whites.

"Feminism" can be a misleading term, but it is actually about gender equality not discriminating against men. Feminism is to equality of the sexes as the Black Panthers were to equality of the races.

Invincible Summer

12th April 2010, 01:39

In conclusion, I think that most masculist arguments deal with isolated cases - and whilst these may be problems, it's not part of a global female conspiracy.
That's right. I just ditched masculism. Oh well.

Glad I could help :lol:

I mean I understand what they're getting at, but it really doesn't make sense when you take into account that many of the problems they're bringing up are really just happening in statistically insignificant amounts or in ways that doesn't actually stem from women being favored over men.

Meridian

12th April 2010, 23:05

By the way, I view masculinism as being strikingly similar to how conservatives complain about discrimination against whites.
That depends what we mean by "masculinism".

"Feminism" can be a misleading term, but it is actually about gender equality not discriminating against men. Feminism is to equality of the sexes as the Black Panthers were to equality of the races.
Where feminism means anti-sexism, which proponents usually claim, "anti-sexism" is clearly a preferable term. For the same reason "black power" isn't as good a term as "anti-racism".

cska

13th April 2010, 01:29

That depends what we mean by "masculinism".

Where feminism means anti-sexism, which proponents usually claim, "anti-sexism" is clearly a preferable term. For the same reason "black power" isn't as good a term as "anti-racism".

Yes I kind of agree with you but one problem with anti-sexism is that in our sexist society men are better off than women. Same as anti-racism, which people like Glenn Beck or the Stormfront people regularly use to complain about how whites are discriminated against.

More Fire for the People

13th April 2010, 01:33

cska

13th April 2010, 03:54

More Fire for the People

13th April 2010, 04:54

The OP.

Foldered

16th April 2010, 08:23

Have you ever read anything by a Marxist feminist or even a feminist? Way to fucking fail on so many levels. Your original post is so full of biases and misconceptions that I'm banking on you being a troll.
I just read the OP and this was basically my response.

I don't think the OP has every cracked anything feminist, either. In fact, I don't think the post even should have even warranted this much discussion.

Anyone who thinks feminism means simply "man hating" is incredibly ignorant.

I.Drink.Your.Milkshake

16th April 2010, 17:59

I'm just using the terminology that has been previously used in this thread. And yes, there are women who hate men so much that they choose to enter homosexual relationships. Not saying that it's wrong, but it's definitely an interesting move, especially for those who were previously heterosexual.

Forgive me if im wrong, but is not a person born homosexual in the same way they are born with black or white skin or with green or blue eyes (well.... blue eyes, obviously, but then eventually green or brown or whatever the case may be.... you understand...)? It's just what they are. If sexuality is genetically determined then its reasonable to assume that such Womens "hatred" of men could be a psychodynamic reaction to being socialised into heterosexuality when at a deeper genetic level they are homosexual.

Im not saying this is the case for everyone though, but i do believe there may be a substantial amount for whom this is the case. Men are generally fucking idiots, myself included.

Invincible Summer

16th April 2010, 21:11

Forgive me if im wrong, but is not a person born homosexual in the same way they are born with black or white skin or with green or blue eyes (well.... blue eyes, obviously, but then eventually green or brown or whatever the case may be.... you understand...)? It's just what they are. If sexuality is genetically determined then its reasonable to assume that such Womens "hatred" of men could be a psychodynamic reaction to being socialised into heterosexuality when at a deeper genetic level they are homosexual.

Im not saying this is the case for everyone though, but i do believe there may be a substantial amount for whom this is the case. Men are generally fucking idiots, myself included.

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the queer community has chosen to be queer or anything.

But you do have a point - the women who are hardcore feminists that enter into homosexual relationships for the sake of being away from men could very well be embracing what they truly were in the first place.

Meridian

17th April 2010, 01:17

Men are generally fucking idiots, myself included.
Why do you say shit like that? This, to me, is sexism, and the idea that men are dumb, evil, bad, etc., simply for being men is fucking disgusting. Does the entire male leftist population have a fetish about this or something? I wonder what would happen if someone said that about women here.

Endomorphian

17th April 2010, 06:12

Forgive me if im wrong, but is not a person born homosexual in the same way they are born with black or white skin or with green or blue eyes (well.... blue eyes, obviously, but then eventually green or brown or whatever the case may be.... you understand...)? It's just what they are. If sexuality is genetically determined then its reasonable to assume that such Womens "hatred" of men could be a psychodynamic reaction to being socialised into heterosexuality when at a deeper genetic level they are homosexual.

Im not saying this is the case for everyone though, but i do believe there may be a substantial amount for whom this is the case. Men are generally fucking idiots, myself included.

You ruined an otherwise good post with one remark. :(

I.Drink.Your.Milkshake

17th April 2010, 17:01

Oh, Jeez! :rolleyes:

The final part of that post was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Why would I, in all seriousness, call myself a "fucking idiot"?

FFS.

Edit: ok, in the interests of equality: Most people are fucking idiots.

Foldered

25th April 2010, 03:27

Understanding sexuality sexuality as biologically pre-determined undermines so much literature that exists on understanding sexuality as a socio-cultural construct.

To say that someone is born with a sexuality is an essentialist standpoint that doesn't take into account the plethora of sexualities that exist. It's a way of avoiding the complexity of human sexuality by reducing it to mere "biology."

And I know you had otherwise good intentions with your post, I.Drink.Your.Milkshake, but suggesting that sexuality is biologically/genetically pre-determined is as troubling as saying that some lesbians are lesbians because they hate men.

counterblast

25th April 2010, 08:58

Violence against men minimalized or taken less seriously than violence against women
I'd argue that men are more able to defend themselves, and most violence is perpetrated by men anyway, so men (physically stronger) attacking women (physically weaker) is looked down upon more.

This is an oversimplification. Strength is variable, not fixed along gender lines.

Even in fights between men, one man is inevitably stronger.

Why should a 125 lb man who is beaten by a 270 lb man, merit less outrage and recieve less community support than a 125 lb woman who experiences the same?

Besides being sexist, this sort of rigid black and white profiling of gender and violence is also very heteronormative and transphobic.

It raises some serious questions.
-How can we address the invisibility of domestic abuse in the gay community if we adhere to such a dichotomy?
-At what point does this profiling stop being biological and start being social?
-Where do trans people come into the mix? Take for example, Duanna Johnson, the pre-op, pre-estrogen trans woman I posted about in the womens forum who was beated by police. Does she fall into the "woman" category, deserving of extra support or since she had testosterone levels comparable to men does she fall under the "capable of defending herself" category?

Social concerns

Increasing suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) rate among young men, four times higher than among young women
This is because suicide rate measures actual suicides, not attempted ones. Women carry out just as many if not more attempted suicides as men, but they usually choose "softer" methods (e.g. pills), as opposed to slitting their wrists or shooting themselves or hanging themselves.

Is there evidence to back this up, or is this your presumption based on gender stereotyping?

Incarceration for not paying child support, particularly for unwanted children, in contrast to women's right to abort (see Male abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_abortion))
Special government agencies for women's affairs with no corresponding agencies for men's affairs

1. Male abortion will be "equal" when men who want to "abort" pay $6000, have a scalpel and tube shoved up their dick hole, have frequent pain inflicted on them for 2-5 weeks after the procedure, and are ostracized by a number of friends and family members and uncompensated by employers for their absence. Also, men who choose to have the child, should be entered into a lottery to decide whether they live or die, since pregnancy has a 9.9% mortality rate.
2. Every other branch of government...? Also, its interesting to note that many womens "affairs" agencies have majority male staff.

Endomorphian

26th April 2010, 02:27

Why does this topic have to elicit so much hate from all sides?

Child support needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I don't see the controversy in that remark. Sex is not a determinant of pregnancy for women, nor men (hence why the token statement that women "choose" to have a baby from intercourse is inaccurate. Apply this for men.) - except perhaps in cases of marriage or union where decisions and their implications affect both partners.

As an anarchist, however, I think it's up for interpretation as to who should pay. Most people would probably side with the opinion that the biological father and mother should be responsible for as much financial obligations as they can handle without putting them in dire poverty.

Invincible Summer

26th April 2010, 03:20

This is an oversimplification. Strength is variable, not fixed along gender lines.

Even in fights between men, one man is inevitably stronger.

Why should a 125 lb man who is beaten by a 270 lb man, merit less outrage and recieve less community support than a 125 lb woman who experiences the same?

Besides being sexist, this sort of rigid black and white profiling of gender and violence is also very heteronormative and transphobic.

My point is that societal norms make attacking someone weaker a no-no. Generally speaking women have less muscle mass than men. And yes, even in a man-on-man fight, there will a weaker man. Unless things have changed, a huge 200-lb MMA fighter beating up a 130-lb high school kid is still looked down upon. I know I'm simplifying, but we're talking in a pretty broad sense anyway.

You're accusing me of being transphobic and sexist just because I made an assertion based on biology?

How is it transphobic just because I just happened to not take into account intersex and whatnot? How is it at all sexist?

It raises some serious questions.
-How can we address the invisibility of domestic abuse in the gay community if we adhere to such a dichotomy?
-At what point does this profiling stop being biological and start being social?
-Where do trans people come into the mix? Take for example, Duanna Johnson, the pre-op, pre-estrogen trans woman I posted about in the womens forum who was beated by police. Does she fall into the "woman" category, deserving of extra support or since she had testosterone levels comparable to men does she fall under the "capable of defending herself" category?
Yes these are all valid points, and I'm sorry I didn't bring it up and therefore I am transphobic. As for heteronormative, I am heterosexual and my worldview is constructed as such. It's not fair to pin people for speaking from what they experience.

Is there evidence to back this up, or is this your presumption based on gender stereotyping?There is evidence, and I've had the stats presented to me in a few sociology classes, but I haven't been trying to look for them.

So yes, try and understand that just because someone isn't talking about every single variable at once and making statements that involve generalizations (in order to talk about a majority of people and not outliers) doesn't mean they are ____phobic and whatever other identity politics pejoratives you want to use.

counterblast

26th April 2010, 04:57

My point is that societal norms make attacking someone weaker a no-no. Generally speaking women have less muscle mass than men. And yes, even in a man-on-man fight, there will a weaker man. Unless things have changed, a huge 200-lb MMA fighter beating up a 130-lb high school kid is still looked down upon. I know I'm simplifying, but we're talking in a pretty broad sense anyway.

You're accusing me of being transphobic and sexist just because I made an assertion based on biology?

How is it transphobic just because I just happened to not take into account intersex and whatnot? How is it at all sexist?

Yes these are all valid points, and I'm sorry I didn't bring it up and therefore I am transphobic. As for heteronormative, I am heterosexual and my worldview is constructed as such. It's not fair to pin people for speaking from what they experience.

There is evidence, and I've had the stats presented to me in a few sociology classes, but I haven't been trying to look for them.

So yes, try and understand that just because someone isn't talking about every single variable at once and making statements that involve generalizations (in order to talk about a majority of people and not outliers) doesn't mean they are ____phobic and whatever other identity politics pejoratives you want to use.

I don't think you're sexist, transphobic or heterosexist. I simply think that blanket statements and gender generalizations similar to the ones above are inherently sexist, transphobic, and heterosexist no matter who says them.

Salabra

26th April 2010, 05:39

...In some cases, "feminism" without a class perspective today is downright reactionary, the effects of which are clearly felt by boys in school...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sex-segregated-schooling-t120443/index.html?p=1619501#post1619501

Meridian

27th April 2010, 16:40

Interesting post Salabra, but unfortunately it relies on your anecdotal 'evidence'.

Thirdly, the classroom dynamics of the co-educational school are often very hostile to girls. Just as girls are socialized to be ‘docile’ and ‘obedient,’ boys are socialized to be ‘aggressive’ and ‘pushy’ (note that I didn't say ‘assertive’ — deliberately). And, despite the neanderthals of the ‘Men’s Movement’ who claim that “listening respectfully to the teacher and taking notes” renders the traditional classroom threatening to boys, most teachers know that this is not the way things work.We need proof that classroom dynamics are hostile to girls, and not to boys. Unless provided, the claim is doubtful because statistics shows that while more people in general are getting higher education, there is a growing inequality with higher numbers of females than males.

Also, the fact that there are far fewer male teachers than female ones (a gap which, last time I checked, also is widening) is likely to have a huge effect on how boys feel about school. However, I admit I haven't seen research on that specifically.

In co-educational classrooms the boys will often be the ones who raise their hands or call out to answer questions (or simply to gain attention) and will sometimes be quite insistent in doing so.Oh my...

Many teachers will simply give in to this dynamic — male teachers because it is ‘natural’ to them, and female teachers because it “makes life easier.” Either way, girls are silenced. In addition, teachers (especially male ones) will often allow girls less time to formulate or express their answers, thus suggesting to them that they are less capable than boys.
Besides the typical sexist comment likening men of the "Men's movement" (which barely exists) to neanderthals, you seem to make nothing but unfounded assertions painting a picture of classrooms as one where males dominate while girls are hushed. In most "western" countries, that is just not the truth.

Endomorphian

27th April 2010, 19:20

Since it's seemingly appropriate on RevLeft to declare certain men neanderthals, is it okay to refer to women who hold views deemed incorrect or reactionary as *****es? Honest inquiry.

cska

27th April 2010, 22:17

Since it's seemingly appropriate on RevLeft to declare certain men neanderthals, is it okay to refer to women who hold views deemed incorrect or reactionary as *****es? Honest inquiry.

I hope not. I'd say many whites are racist, because that is the truth. On the other hand, I would not allow someone on revleft to call a black person a nigger because he holds capitalist views. I would apply the same principle that I apply to racism to sexism.

When calling men neanderthals, you are pointing out the socially constructed fact that exists in society. When you call a woman a *****, you are taking advantage of her gender in using a sexist term.

Of course, "neanderthals" is probably not the right term, as there is no conclusive evidence that neanderthals were inferior (wether in intelligence or equality of the sexes) to homo sapiens.

Foldered

27th April 2010, 22:19

Since it's seemingly appropriate on RevLeft to declare certain men neanderthals, is it okay to refer to women who hold views deemed incorrect or reactionary as *****es? Honest inquiry.
Since "neanderthal" is gender neutral, using "neanderthal" for "women who hold views deemed incorrect or reaction" would really be the only correlatable term.
Using "*****" in this context would be so unrelated that you would come across worse than the person "who holds views deemed incorrect or reactionary."

Personally, I'd just avoid attempting to personally (or even intellectually) degrade the person you having a constructive dialogue with, but that's just me.

Franz Fanonipants

27th April 2010, 22:42

Foldered

27th April 2010, 22:49

OP is counterrevolutionary.

That said, I've always thought that defining feminism as being about some broad "egalitarianism" rather than an actual struggle against patriarchy was kind of simplistic. Was I incorrect?
Yes, you were very correct. But, as the OP doesn't realize, being against patriarchy doesn't mean you're against "men" or some sort of "man hater."

Franz Fanonipants

27th April 2010, 23:03

As a dude, even I sometimes despise my own gender.

But yeah, I have to wonder if the OP has really thought about inherent privilege in his view point. Or did I miss that earlier in the thread?

Even if Feminism really was a collection of theoretical "misandry," it wouldn't have any less of a theoretical base to work from. Especially considering the lives of the vast majority of women.

Endomorphian

28th April 2010, 18:37

Since "neanderthal" is gender neutral, using "neanderthal" for "women who hold views deemed incorrect or reaction" would really be the only correlatable term.
Using "*****" in this context would be so unrelated that you would come across worse than the person "who holds views deemed incorrect or reactionary."

Neanderthal is a common term in American vernacular used by women against men they deem intellectually inferior. Just as ***** is used by men predominantly to signify an annoying or headstrong woman, it's extremely rare that a man will ever refer to another man or a woman as a neanderthal.

In short, if ***** is bigoted, so too is this word in its context. The OP may be off on how he critiques patriarchy, but it's true that users and persons in general hold double standards in who they think it's acceptable to offend. Men are not oppressed, but they can be mistreated and be the subject (not pervader) of bigotry. Being able to offhandedly refer to someone of working class orientation - even if he or she is privileged in some way - has its own societal consequences as well. It constructs more barriers between differerent people. We constantly see this with liberal white and male guilt.

At the end of the day, every one of us is affected by patriarchy. I just don't understand the mindset that we approach reactionaries as "chauvinistic pigs" when 1.) it isolates them further and 2.) neglects to include those women who are chauvinistic against their own sex (sometimes for their individual benefit).

Foldered

28th April 2010, 19:45

At the end of the day, every one of us is affected by patriarchy. I just don't understand the mindset that we approach reactionaries as "chauvinistic pigs" when 1.) it isolates them further and 2.) neglects to include those women who are chauvinistic against their own sex (sometimes for their individual benefit).
Of course , but calling someone a ***** because they called you a neanderthal isn't going to do anything.

And I would certainly argue that men too are oppressed under patriarchy, they just don't realize it.

Franz Fanonipants

29th April 2010, 00:15

Women's chauvinism, used strategically, is essentially about liberation. I mean, it might make you an asshole if you stayed there for too long, but it isn't oppressive.

Male chauvinism is p. much just oppressors reveling in privilege.

Franz Fanonipants

29th April 2010, 00:45

And I would certainly argue that men too are oppressed under patriarchy, they just don't realize it.

tbh, I just had this argument with a friend, but men being oppressed by patriarchy is a lot like Memmi's colonizer being oppressed by colonialism. Sure, yeah, it makes us act certain ways, but we recoup the fuck out of what we lose.

29th April 2010, 01:15

^I don’t know, I don‘t really agree with any of the arguments being floated in the last few pages of this thread.
Tbf, I don’t think self-flagellation is very helpful, and neither is presenting "men" as an amorphous entity and then equating it with "the oppressor", or alternately, suggesting that it is "oppressed". Humanity is divided first and foremost by class, and social oppression needs to be seen in that context.

Meridian

29th April 2010, 01:20

When calling men neanderthals, you are pointing out the socially constructed fact that exists in society. When you call a woman a *****, you are taking advantage of her gender in using a sexist term.
What socially constructed truth is being pointed out by the usage of the term "neanderthal" about men? How, exactly, is it different to use this term about men than it is to use the term "*****" about women?

Of course, we can imagine uses of the word "neanderthal" where it did not have sexist connotations. But that's not the case here, as we are referencing men specifically in relation to their sex. So, it is analogous to calling a woman a '*****', not because she is mean but because she is a woman who may happen to be mean.

Of course, "neanderthals" is probably not the right term, as there is no conclusive evidence that neanderthals were inferior (wether in intelligence or equality of the sexes) to homo sapiens.This seems to carry the meaning that "neanderthal" is not the right term because it doesn't even do mens inferiority justice...

However, we all know what is meant by the stereotype; men being like neanderthals, mindless apes, slaves to their appetites, without patience and feelings, etc. No need to reintroduce this reactionary idea by choosing a more precise slang for it.

Franz Fanonipants

29th April 2010, 01:23

29th April 2010, 03:56

Believe me, self-flagellation for my male privilege is something I indulge in only rarely.

Of course, at the same time, even in a purely class-oriented analysis of this world, you must concede that men tend to hold economic power over women in like 90% of cases. So, there's that.

Well, yeah, but the question is whose interests does this state of affairs ultimately serve. The answer is not the amorphous "men", but rather, is the ruling class, which is comprised of both men and women; bourgeois women are no less the class enemy by virtue of being women.
So what is ultimately the role of self-flagellation among working class men? Who is served by it? Frankly, I think it fulfills the same purpose as bourgeois individualism which convinces workers that all the hardships they face due to capitalism are really just the product of their own inadequacy.

Foldered

29th April 2010, 05:28

Humanity is divided first and foremost by class, and social oppression needs to be seen in that context.
Of course, I don't think anyone is denying that.

Franz Fanonipants

29th April 2010, 17:14

Well, yeah, but the question is whose interests does this state of affairs ultimately serve. The answer is not the amorphous "men", but rather, is the ruling class, which is comprised of both men and women; bourgeois women are no less the class enemy by virtue of being women.

Except for the fact that they're on the receiving end of class oppression by virtue of their gender, even within their class.

I mean, shit, I dislike the bourgeois as much as the next guy, but to act like being bourgeois doesn't come with gendered or cultural baggage is kind of silly.

cska

29th April 2010, 20:24

What socially constructed truth is being pointed out by the usage of the term "neanderthal" about men? How, exactly, is it different to use this term about men than it is to use the term "*****" about women?

The truth that, uhh, most men are chauvinist pigs. The term neanderthal is used to point out oppression by men. Women, on the other hand are not generally mean, and the term ***** is used to keep women in their "proper place". Usage of "*****" is men taking advantage of a society that favors them.

Of course, we can imagine uses of the word "neanderthal" where it did not have sexist connotations. But that's not the case here, as we are referencing men specifically in relation to their sex. So, it is analogous to calling a woman a '*****', not because she is mean but because she is a woman who may happen to be mean.

No, it is not analogous, as this society favors men over women, and thus one term is sexist against the oppressor and the other is sexist against the oppressed.

Meridian

30th April 2010, 03:15

The truth that, uhh, most men are chauvinist pigs.Complete bullshit, an outrageous claim.

The term neanderthal is used to point out oppression by men.No. The term "neanderthal" as used in the way discussed here, is used to put down men. The stereotype of a 'neanderthal' isn't someone that is necessarily oppressive, but it is one that is dumb, primitive, prone to follow the "lesser instincts", etc, etc. Why is it difficult for people to succumb to the obvious possibility of this simply being a case of sexism? Why should it matter if it is against men or against women?

Women, on the other hand are not generally mean, and the term ***** is used to keep women in their "proper place". Usage of "*****" is men taking advantage of a society that favors them.I agree that "*****" is a sexist term, which I hope you realize. However, what you say doesn't hold true. Women use the term "*****" as well, and in these cases it can not be true that men are taking advantage of women. It is not simply a case of men oppressing women. And not only that, as has been alluded, the usage of many terms function equally to oppress men.

No, it is not analogous, as this society favors men over women, and thus one term is sexist against the oppressor and the other is sexist against the oppressed.What do you really mean by "this society favors men over women"? Sentences like that may seem meaningful but actually they are void of meaning, as a society is not a person that can favor anything/anyone. Certainly, our stereotype of women will render them nothing but victims. But, to prove your point you'd have to point to more specific research into how it is that women are inherently (from the fact of being women) worse off than men are (from the fact that they are men).

Also, you make another claim; namely that women are the oppressed and that men are the oppressors. To back that up you would have to prove that it is inherent to being a man being an oppressor, and inherent to being a woman being oppressed.

But, if this statement is true then we can never overcome gender inequality, given that we have genders; the existence of which, after all, supposedly generate a situation of oppression. I am not sure this is what you want to be arguing, though I could be wrong.

cska

30th April 2010, 04:38

Complete bullshit, an outrageous claim.

Let's dissect your arguments:

No. The term "neanderthal" as used in the way discussed here, is used to put down men. The stereotype of a 'neanderthal' isn't someone that is necessarily oppressive, but it is one that is dumb, primitive, prone to follow the "lesser instincts", etc, etc. Why is it difficult for people to succumb to the obvious possibility of this simply being a case of sexism? Why should it matter if it is against men or against women?

It is a case of sexism. It is reverse sexism, and I support it. Many whites in America are ignorant racists and I have absolutely no problems with saying so. Same goes for men in America, or most of the world for that matter.

I agree that "*****" is a sexist term, which I hope you realize. However, what you say doesn't hold true. Women use the term "*****" as well, and in these cases it can not be true that men are taking advantage of women. It is not simply a case of men oppressing women. And not only that, as has been alluded, the usage of many terms function equally to oppress men.

Sure. I know plenty of Indians who will look down on anybody who is not white. That doesn't make it non-racist. Just because the oppressed help further the oppression doesn't make them not oppressed.

What do you really mean by "this society favors men over women"? Sentences like that may seem meaningful but actually they are void of meaning, as a society is not a person that can favor anything/anyone. Certainly, our stereotype of women will render them nothing but victims. But, to prove your point you'd have to point to more specific research into how it is that women are inherently (from the fact of being women) worse off than men are (from the fact that they are men).

Seriously, are you blind? Take a look at the world around you! Do you really believe women aren't worse of then men? You're like the conservatives that complain about racism against whites.

Also, you make another claim; namely that women are the oppressed and that men are the oppressors. To back that up you would have to prove that it is inherent to being a man being an oppressor, and inherent to being a woman being oppressed.

I never said that there is some thing inherent to men being oppressed! I said that in this society, men are oppressors and women are oppressed. It is the same as saying that whites are oppressors and non-whites are oppressed. It is a fucking fact. That doesn't mean whites are inherently oppressors. It means that this society is structured so as to cause whites and males to be oppressors.

But, if this statement is true then we can never overcome gender inequality, given that we have genders; the existence of which, after all, supposedly generate a situation of oppression. I am not sure this is what you want to be arguing, though I could be wrong.

No, that is not what I was arguing. However, I do believe we need to eliminate the socially constructed gender as a prerequisite to ending discrimination based on sex.

Meridian

30th April 2010, 21:08

Let's dissect your arguments:
Okay.

It is a case of sexism. It is reverse sexism, and I support it.
You support sexism? Then what are you doing on a revolutionary leftist forum, more specifically, in the discrimination section? Didn't you know, the board is not called "Discrimination" because we want to spread it!

Many whites in America are ignorant racists and I have absolutely no problems with saying so. Same goes for men in America, or most of the world for that matter.
Many whites in America are indeed ignorant racists, and nor do I have any problems with saying so. There are also many men in America that are sexists, likewise, many men in the whole world. But it is not simply delimited to men, as sexism also occurs frequently among females. And the victims are not consistently women, as certain aspects of the relationship between genders have conclusively been shown to have negative effects on large classes of men. I can point to gender research here showing how female partner choices largely affect the attitudes and behaviors of men, and widespread stereotypical male representation in media, for example.

Sure. I know plenty of Indians who will look down on anybody who is not white. That doesn't make it non-racist.
If an Indian looks down on white people based on the fact that they are white, then that is racism. But if he looks down on certain groups of people, that happen to be white, because of more or less 'valid' reasons, then that is not racism.

Just because the oppressed help further the oppression doesn't make them not oppressed.Just because you keep repeating suppositions without including valid arguments does not make them true.

Seriously, are you blind? Take a look at the world around you! Do you really believe women aren't worse of then men? You're like the conservatives that complain about racism against whites.
No, in many instances women are worse off than men, and I haven't claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that the line of argumentation that takes the side of women as a gender against men as a gender is completely wrong, and, in fact, contradictory. If sexual discrimination exists, which I believe it most certainly does, and if we want to overcome sexual inequality, then we can not think in terms of "women are oppressed, men are the oppressor". The reason is that it would mean that all women are oppressed, while all men are oppressors. And that is not true, unlike, for example, the fact that all workers are oppressed and all capitalists are oppressors. That is true, because this is what we mean by "worker" and "capitalist"; they are defined that way.

Technically, a worker wouldn't be a worker if he were not oppressed. A woman would not cease to be a woman if she was no longer oppressed.

I never said that there is some thing inherent to men being oppressed! I said that in this society, men are oppressors and women are oppressed.
If there is nothing inherent with men being oppressors and women being oppressed, then it is an empirical claim. To prove it you will have to show to us all that:
1. All women are oppressed (by men, I suppose?)
2. All men are oppressors (of women, I suppose?)

Proving it would involve studying every single woman in this society, to see if she is oppressed, and studying every single man in this society, to see if he is an oppressor. This would be an arduous task, no doubt, but it would be necessary since you claim there is nothing inherent in men being oppressors (which I agree), and that there is nothing inherent in women being oppressed (which I also agree), yet "men are oppressors, and women are oppressed".

If you want to backtrack and claim that there actually is something inherent about the genders causing oppression, then see above.

It is the same as saying that whites are oppressors and non-whites are oppressed. It is a fucking fact.
Certainly it is not a "fucking fact", because not all whites are oppressors and not all non-whites are oppressed! For one thing, this would cause a contradiction if we are to follow what you say about women and apply it to white women. I do also believe this would be an insult to all the non-white workers in this world; suggesting that both them and their non-white capitalist bosses are oppressed. Get your "fucking facts" straight!

That doesn't mean whites are inherently oppressors. It means that this society is structured so as to cause whites and males to be oppressors.Since you are still claiming that all males/whites are oppressors, see the part about this dubious empirical claim above.

Endomorphian

1st May 2010, 01:40

Women's chauvinism, used strategically, is essentially about liberation.

Experience tells me it's essentially about being a misinformed asshole.

Most politically-motivated and hardline feminists I've met have been very kind and hostile towards "women's chauvinism." Anyone who defends it isn't a feminist.

Endomorphian

1st May 2010, 01:43

The truth that, uhh, most men are chauvinist pigs. The term neanderthal is used to point out oppression by men. Women, on the other hand are not generally mean, and the term ***** is used to keep women in their "proper place". Usage of "*****" is men taking advantage of a society that favors them.

.

Right, and black people are generally less trustworthy, eh?

Your defense of double standards boils down to some normative statement about men being meaner. Ridiculous.

Endomorphian

1st May 2010, 01:50

It is reverse sexism, and I support it.

Yeah, the way to get men to become feminist is to advocate sexism against them. Your approach makes so much more sense after typing it out.

Meridian

1st May 2010, 14:46

Endomorphian - no need to post multiple posts, and, even though I kind of agree with you, no need for that accusatory attitude.

You're drowning what was a pretty interesting debate.

Ocean Seal

20th May 2010, 23:12

Foldered

20th May 2010, 23:41

I don't believe that a grand majority of feminists believe that sex degrades women.
It's safe to say that a grand majority of feminists believe that sex doesn't (or doesn't have to) degrade women. That was a huge part of third-wave feminism.

Obzervi

21st May 2010, 22:05

leftace53

22nd May 2010, 04:38

Frankly its pathetic to see a society where one even has to define a word for gender equality because it isn't built in. Feminism is often used as a term for gender equality because women are/have been the oppressed ones - hence like so many others in this thread have said - females need to be empowered to "bring them up" to equality standards. While its all fine and dandy now, I think we might need to invent a new term for it when gender equality has been achieved to not discount males and any inequalities they may face (what is a weirder factor of production than a "people making factory")

Foldered

22nd May 2010, 04:58

Feminism is largely a movement by and for white women and their interests. Its no secret that the early feminist movement was exclusively comprised of upper class white women who wanted the same right to oppress as their white male counterparts. These women were opposed to the inclusion of women of color. Personally I feel feminists are quite a selfish group of people as they tend to only care about their own perceived suffering over that of other oppressed groups.
First and second wave feminism were white and middle class movements, yes, but if you look at third wave feminism (particularly mid-late 80s and throughout the 90s), you'll see that these issues were adressed within feminsm. I would suggest bell hooks' Feminist Theory: from margin to center for a very well done analysis of the problems of second wave feminism.
To simply say that men and women of colour are excluded from feminism is to ignore a huge majority of recent progress within feminism.

Frankly its pathetic to see a society where one even has to define a word for gender equality because it isn't built in.
Yes, I agree. Much of the feminist movement strives towards a society where gender equality exists and doesn't, therefore, need to be defined.

Feminism is often used as a term for gender equality because women are/have been the oppressed ones - hence like so many others in this thread have said - females need to be empowered to "bring them up" to equality standards. While its all fine and dandy now, I think we might need to invent a new term for it when gender equality has been achieved to not discount males and any inequalities they may face (what is a weirder factor of production than a "people making factory")
Feminism is not simply a term and the aim of a feminist and feminism isn't to "bring [women] up"; much of feminism seeks to restructure concepts of gender, and the power-dynamics that currently exist withing those concepts. And actually, it's not all "fine and dandy now."
I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism, which is fine, but I suggest you look into it before you discount it as "outdated" or an inaccurate term.

leftace53

22nd May 2010, 05:15

Feminism is not simply a term and the aim of a feminist and feminism isn't to "bring [women] up"; much of feminism seeks to restructure concepts of gender, and the power-dynamics that currently exist withing those concepts.

Fair enough, "bringing women up" is not the only aim of feminism, but with regards to gender inequality and current capitalist society "bringing women up" changes power dynamics in itself, and much of the restructuring concepts of gender within feminism include a focus on women, rather than men (although we can see that evolving now that stay at home dad's are getting common).

And actually, it's not all "fine and dandy now."
I meant using the term feminism, not the state of gender inequality, sorry for the confusion.

I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism, which is fine, but I suggest you look into it before you discount it as "outdated" or an inaccurate term.

I didn't discount it as outdated or as inaccurate, I said that once the current aim of my poorly defined feminism ("bringing women up") has been fulfilled, a change of wording may need to occur because then oppression through gender inequality will not be focused on women.

Foldered

22nd May 2010, 05:19

I said that once the current aim of my poorly defined feminism ("bringing women up") has been fulfilled, a change of wording may need to occur because then oppression through gender inequality will not be focused on women.
I understand, but I think it's really important to view feminism as not only focused on women. You're right though, I'm sure it will be a different movement with a different title, just as we now have Gender Studies as a discipline.

Salabra

20th June 2010, 01:57

Firstly, a word on the general topic of feminism, ‘classless,’ ‘utopian’ or otherwise.

The ideal of feminism that I know purely and simply involves challenging the ‘roles, rules and rituals’ that structure ’traditional’ gendered behaviour with a view to making them less of a strait-jacket. My feminism is one in which everyone gets to pursue who they are without society wagging a finger and telling us who or what we should be, and which frees men to be themselves just as much as it frees women.

Observing the personal experiences of my father, I can attest that men also face tremendous problems in our sexist societies — problems created by a male “code of behaviour” relating to such things as jobs, money, health, and even interests, that can grind them into the ground, both in their youth and in their adulthood. Good men — like my father — struggle heroically with this, against generations of programming. Weak men, and bad ones, gradually short out — and flip out. The good men learn to pretend, the others are unable to. Some men find a way to derail the criticism, some find the strength to ignore it, and for others it is the bane of their lives. The smarter ones develop the tools to question these values, but it’s hard to have faith in your questions when it seems like everyone around you, including some women, believes that men ‘should’ be strong, aggressive, unemotional, anti-intellectual bozos.

And some men, of course, just love ‘traditional’ patterns of gender relations. This doesn’t make them ‘strong’ — more often it just makes them bastards.

I can't help but feel most communists are stuck in 1930….

You are quite perceptive here — I just think you are thinking about 50 years too late.

It saddens me just how puritanical many of those on the Left actually are. It is almost as if, though we are ready to overturn the world in every other sphere, some of us are desperate to maintain an almost Victorian ‘respectability’ when it comes to matters sexual. It’s as if such comrades know that S-E-X is their Achilles’ heel when trying to publicize their views.

Mind you, there is a dose or two of Victorian priggishness in the writings of ole Karl himself (“The standardization of the working day must include the restriction of female labour … otherwise it could only mean the exclusion of women from branches of industry … that are objectionable morally for the female sex”), while Engels’ homophobia endears him to the more puritanical sections of the Left.

Men are called "pig" when they talk with lust abot a woman and yet I hear girls talking about Taylor Lautner all the time

I’m glad someone knows who Taylor Lautner is (I’m not all that keen on vampires). Three answers, Ztrain — first, most girls who talk about Mr Lautner are probably talking in terms about how “warm and, like, gooey inside” he makes them feel, not about the size of the bulge in his underwear or about how they want to be ‘filled up’ by that bulge. That is the preserve of older girls/women (or more aware younger ones), and I will give you a facetious answer here — women have realized that men will rarely modify their own behaviour toward women, so they have simply ‘put the boot on the other foot,’ and started to talk about men merely in terms of their body parts. Payback’s a *****, hey? But, seriously, it’s all about the commodification of individuals that occurs regularly in class society.

…feminism has created an anti male sexist climate

So when a man says, “I don’t trust anything that bleeds for x-number-of-days and doesn’t die,” he’s OK, but when I say, “Do you really think a SANE supreme being would fabricate a Hairy Brick, add on “dangly bits” almost as an afterthought and then call it the Acme of Creation — let alone give it dominion over other creatures?” I’m creating ‘an anti male sexist climate’?

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when my students have to walk past the boys’ school to catcalls based on their appearance or physical attributes, measured against the anorexic — and often airbrushed — body shape of the supermodels, which is offered up by capitalist media as “to-die-for”?

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women hold a meeting about matters which are important to them (but are ‘irrelevant’ to men) and have to put up with half-a-dozen men playing the fool outside the door with comments like, “What ya need is a good fuck, luv!”

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women can’t sit in a bar without being harassed to death by males eager to paint themselves as “the best thing since sliced bread”? [Some of us don’t actually enjoy being “pursued and won over” — read “annoyed to distraction and bored shitless” — and some men seem to find the word ‘no’ unintelligible, or believe that it really means ‘yes.’]

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women feel that they have to avoid going to certain places, wearing certain things, or acting in certain ways lest they ‘provoke’ an attack by men? Men not only use the act of rape to humiliate and destroy women, they also use the threat of rape to prevent us from participating fully in all aspects of life. Most of us experience this threatened feeling at random during our lives — it doesn’t take being in the USSR in 1941, or in Bosnia or South-Central Africa; sometimes a visit to a pub, or a ‘friend’s’ BBQ can be threatening enough, and attacks can occur because one is working late, or wearing a short skirt or ‘revealing’ blouse, or “sending out signals,” or… — and it is this very randomness (you never know when you’re going to be at risk), that justifies the feminist claim that women live under the threat of rape every day of their lives. Most of us develop a sixth sense about such situations/people and exercise care, but we shouldn’t have to modify our behaviour unreasonably (“However we dress, wherever we go/’Yes’ means ‘yes’ and ‘no’ means ‘no’!”).

[And before you start, I know that men are raped too, for exactly the same reasons — power, control, and the desire to humiliate and destroy. And, yes, it is harder for the victims of such rapes to come forward — although it most definitely shouldn’t be.]

Oh, and I suppose that when African-American Stokely Carmichael was asked what position women should play in the civil-rights movement of the 1960s and replied ‘prone,’ he was not creating a ‘sexist climate’? (I’ll be generous and credit the man with actually knowing the difference between ‘prone – on one’s face’ and ‘supine – on one’s back.’ He may then simply have been describing his preferred method, as a self-proclaimed ‘top dog,’ of ‘taking’ ‘his’ ‘*****es’).

When a substantial proportion of men (hopefully outside of RevLeft) still believe that coercing a woman into having sex is not ‘violence,’ and a smaller, though still not inconsiderable, number believe that women actually enjoy rape, we definitely have a ‘sexist climate,’ Comrade.

Oh, it’s an anti-male ‘sexist climate’ that disturbs you?

If you mean that you feel intimidated by women, Ztrain, please say so — many men do, and they go into absolute toxic meltdown when they think that women are “banding together” against them. Apparently, groups of men banding together against women is ‘natural,’ but women in class society must be prevented from doing the same by every method available, from ridiculing their attempts to understand their oppression and articulate a response to it — the capitalist media’s attack on all forms of ‘feminism’ being a prime example — to creating rivalries between individual women, encouraging them to compete for ‘favour’ and ‘status,’ to singling out the more outspoken for ‘special treatment’ to “put them in their place.”

Throughout much of the world, and for much of human history, women have known that opposing men, let alone ‘banding together’ against them, is a recipe not merely for social death, but often for physical extermination. Because women are not stupid and actually enjoy being alive they play games, like

The girl who, at 9 or 10, is a strong and competent woman-in-the-making and suddenly, at 14 or 15, becomes a passive admirer of male tomfoolery, because she knows that (most) adolescent males have no time for strong and competent women;
The woman who sits in a bar listening in pretended fascination to the half-drunk ramblings of the latest self promoting male who makes her his target, because she knows how lethally dangerous (some) men can be when their egos are bruised — and not every dangerous guy wears a label, so…;
The woman who stays with her battering boyfriend/husband, because she knows that he will hunt her down and kill her if she leaves;
Even sadder, the woman who convinces herself that this same thug loves her, and that his battering ‘proves’ that he loves her.

And so, seeing that such behaviour keeps them and their sisters alive, women hand this Stockholm Syndrome pattern of behaviour down to their daughters.

Do I see all boys as selfish yobbos or all men as rapists, batterers or murderers? Do I see all women as victims, or as victims all the time? No, of course not. I am merely pointing out a pattern in our societies, extolled as ‘natural’ by some and as theologically-approved by others, which ‘feminism’ has questioned and intimated a way out of. If questioning these ‘traditional’ attitudes and behaviours seems to have created an “anti-male sexist climate,” so be it.

I have a question though: because women's rights and feminist struggle has tried to get women equal rights and opportunities to men, does this inherently suggest that men are superior, and women have to play "catch up?" Or is it more of a response to the socio-cultural subjugation of women?

The latter.

And yes, there are women who hate men so much that they choose to enter homosexual relationships.

A few — not a large number, I’d have to say, without any proof whatsoever. I imagine that “women who hate men so much” would most frequently remain celibate, especially given the enormous prejudice against lesbians in class society.

In fact, I find it sad that more women do not take advantage of experiencing gay relationships, either because of the heterosexism of the wider society or for socio-economic reasons.

…The "men's rights movement" generally promotes "masculinism." I think it's pretty reactionary, as they seem to have this "feminism to an extent" viewpoint. They talk about how women are dominating men and chivalry is subjugating men, etc.

Firstly, let me apologize to the Neanderthals for linking them with the various Men’s Movements — I was doing the Neanderthals a disservice!

Secondly, yes, the “Men’s Movement” is miniscule — since class society is primarily patriarchal, there would seem to be no aching need for a movement to liberate men from a system where things work to their advantage.

Yet there is — just as there is a ‘movement’ composed of primarily white middle-class people who claim that they are ‘victims’ of ‘reverse racism’ or of christians who whinge because, under the “authoritarian regime of political correctness,” they are “not allowed” to put up Christmas trees or their children to sing carols. Most ‘masculinist’ theorists are ‘me-too-ists’ whose lament is “we men have it just as bad as you women do.” I used to wonder why — if they thought that they were victims of a ‘sexist society’ — such men didn’t embrace the movement that aimed to weaken the bonds of that sexism, i.e., feminism. Then I remembered that there were ‘masculinists’ of another order too —determinists (either biological or theological) who think that ‘male supremacy’ and gender-specific behaviour is mandated by ‘Nature’ or by their invisible friends. The two types are actually two sides of the same coin — both are happy with the uneven ground of ‘traditional’ gendered behaviour and see no reason to change, since it is their gender that benefits from it.This was brought home to me with a shock at an early age when I learned that one of the ‘me-too-ists’ (whose work I was trying to approach ‘sympathetically’) was a prolific writer of internet manuals-of-instruction on the D/s lifestyle. Because, as we all know, “women really want to be dominated by men — and men really need to be supported by women.”

Gender research does show that women perpetuate stereotypes on the 'gender market' (that is, the 'arena for coupling'...) to at least as large a degree as men. Generally, here they have a role of dominance (by which I mean simply of selection), and their choices and attitude here will largely affect what many men will strive for.

And — on a longer timescale — one can make a decent argument that women are, on average, smaller and slighter than men because men have actively selected women with such body types as ‘ideal’ breeding partners.

Well, according to all the professors on gender/sex I've spoken to, men are more frequently the victims of domestic violence than women. They report it less, of course. It is often less physically damaging for them than when a male attacks a woman but, nevertheless, it can be extremely dangerous both physically and mentally. The main problem here is that they are too dignified to report it, to authorities if need be.

‘More frequently’? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Yes, female-to-male domestic violence does occur (as does female-to-female domestic violence and male-to-male domestic violence — and non-white-to-white domestic violence) and, yes, it is a crime too — or should be, if it isn’t recognized as such. But ignoring the fact that male-to-female violence (domestic or otherwise) is far more frequent — and, in many cases, ignored, if not actually sanctioned by, the wider society in which the parties live — and that finding a solution to it is more urgent, is simply whingeing ‘me-too-ism’ of the type described above and amounts to sitting on one’s arse doing nothing “until all problems can be solved.”

Additionally, I see women discriminating against women as being less common/extreme than men discriminating against women.

Women discriminate against/are nasty/’*****y’/antipathetic to other women as a way to curry favour and advance in male-dominated hierarchies (I can’t relate to this except on the basis of “I understand why it’s happening — but it lessens your humanity to do it, woman, so please don’t!”).

…As for prison rape, I think it is several factors. Firstly, people don't care as much about prisoners. However, I don't think that is the sole cause, as if women in prison were being raped i prison, there would be a pretty big outrage. I think it is due to what is probably the aspect of sexism that is most harmful to men: the expectation that men need to be macho and it is up to them not to be victims and to victimize others.

Women do get raped in prison, both by staff and by other prisoners — because rape is about power, not sex. It is used as a method of establishing a hierarchy of dominance there as it is in men’s prisons — it is also a method by which men do the same to women (and, on occasion, to other men) in the non-custodial world.

There is no big fuss made of it because — as you’ve said — it is assumed that all prisoners deserve to be in prison.

Understanding sexuality as biologically pre-determined undermines so much literature that exists on understanding sexuality as a socio-cultural construct.
To say that someone is born with a sexuality is an essentialist standpoint that doesn't take into account the plethora of sexualities that exist. It's a way of avoiding the complexity of human sexuality by reducing it to mere "biology."

And I know you had otherwise good intentions with your post, I.Drink.Your.Milkshake, but suggesting that sexuality is biologically/genetically pre-determined is as troubling as saying that some lesbians are lesbians because they hate men.

Thank you — I have been saying as much for as long as I have been posting on this site.

Moreover, not only is ‘biologically-determined sexuality’ ahistorical and un-Marxist, it is also strategically dangerous (I have argued this elsewhere — http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=2067)

Interesting post Salabra, but unfortunately it relies on your anecdotal 'evidence'.

So the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of my ten years experience as a teacher, reinforced by the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of friends and colleagues, which all point to adolescent boys tending toward attention-seeking behaviour, disruption of the learning environment and often blatant hostility toward female teachers needs to be statistically verified for you to accept it?

I have ‘research’ to back me up, but I don’t bother slinging it around — ‘research’ in matters sociological can be skewed by a myriad of factors, not least by the tendency of researchers to choose their target groups, frame their questions and interpret the responses they get so that their original assumptions are confirmed.

Moreover the same researchers can produce different results at different times — witness the ever-shifting debate between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture.’ Or the same research can be ‘spun’ to produce different results — the AAUW (American Association of University Women) reports that argued that girls are better off in single-gender schools were spun in press releases to read the opposite. This merely reflects the fact that ‘research’ is usually tailored to larger socio-economic currents.

But here are some studies you may want to read — Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls (ed Susan Morse); Educating Girls — Practice and Research (GC Leder and SN Sampson, eds); A Critical Look at Same Sex Schools for Girl;, BettyWhite; Failing at Fairness, Sadker & Sadker; Building Self: Adolescent Girls and Self-Esteem, Sundra Flansburg 1993; Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) Report into Senior Secondary Achievement in Member Schools of the Alliance of Girls’ Schools Australasia; Boys and Girls Perform Better in Same Sex Schools, K Rowe (head of ACER at the time he gave this address);Gender differences in mathematics - attitudes of secondary school students (Steinbeck & Gwizdala, 1995 in School Science and Mathematics 95); Underestimating youth’s commitment to schools and society: Toward a more differentiated view (Good, Nichols & Sabers, 1999 in Social Psychology of Education An International Journal 3);Single-sex schooling and educational effectiveness: A research overview, (Moore, Piper & Schaefer, 1993 in Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research, DK Hollinger (ed)); and, of course, the (US) NASSPE site.

If you really want to argue that “boys and girls have different styles of learning” — and there is a body of ‘research’ that supports this view — why not argue for single-gendered education?

Please don’t reply with the stock answer that co-education aids in ‘socialization’ or ‘teaching members of both genders to work together.’ Sure, socialization is necessary and wonderful, but if you claim to be a Marxist, then you will know that people are socialized in ways that benefit the ruling class — under capitalism conformity is enforced (usually in the Anglosphere dressed up as consensus), obedience to authority is enjoined, individual competiveness is enthroned as the ultimate virtue … and boys and girls are indoctrinated into patterns of aggressive and conciliatory behaviour respectively. If you are not a Marxist, you will doubtless regard the sometimes comical and sometimes tragic behaviour of adolescent males and adolescent females in mixed settings as ‘natural.’ Girls in capitalist society ‘learn’ to take the back seat in any situation where project ‘teams’ are of mixed genders, or risk the consequences.

Moreover, academic achievement is just as important as ‘socialization,’ and, as I have pointed out on several occasions, neither gender is reaching its full potential. There is also substantial research to show that boys alsobenefit from single-gendered education. I often wonder whether men who oppose single-gender education do so because they are comfortable with the current paradigm whereby they can dominate the schoolroom as they try to dominate other areas.

But I repeat what I said in my earlier post — “Note that I am not denying that most of these problems are exacerbated by capitalist social relations, and will be attenuated by capitalism’s overthrow — I am merely pointing out that, even after the Revolution, there will need to be protracted effort (‘a leap in social consciousness’) to ensure equal educational opportunities for both genders.”

…are getting higher education, there is a growing inequality with higher numbers of females than males.

Or it could ‘prove’ that females are determined to succeed even against the ‘sabotage’ of their male peers.

Also, the fact that there are far fewer male teachers than female ones (a gap which, last time I checked, also is widening) is likely to have a huge effect on how boys feel about school.

Agreed, there aren’t enough male teachers — but that is a result of how my profession is devalued under capitalism. A teacher earns a fraction of what can be earned in other professions. In capitalist society, males tend to spurn teaching in favour of more highly-paid jobs, and they tend to get them because the capitalist employer assumes that they have families to support (which may be true) and argues that females are ‘incapable’(a reason rarely offered — overtly — these days) or are ‘unreliable’ (they may go off to have —shock, horror —babies). So we have a vicious circle — men don’t go into teaching because they can earn more elsewhere, therefore teaching is seen as less ‘valuable’ in the minds of male students, therefore…

But there is also a sexist ‘division of labour’ within the teaching profession. Women are over-represented at the early-childhood level (because looking after small children is ‘women’s work’) but their numbers thin out the closer one gets to the end of — co-educational — secondary school. Both boys and girls are socialized to regard adult males as having greater ‘authority’ than females.

Furthermore, many men, who would prefer to continue teaching, are pressured to go into ‘administration’ instead. This does disadvantage boys, for the reasons outlined in the above two paragraphs.

Oh my...

Read this part of my post again please. I said, “In co-educational classrooms the boys will often be the ones who raise their hands or call out to answer questions (or simply to gain attention) and will sometimes be quite insistent in doing so. Many teachers will simply give in to this dynamic — male teachers because it is ‘natural’ to them, and female teachers because it “makes life easier.”

So, tell me why you think boys do this — are they trying to compete with other boys? Or with the teacher? Are they trying to gain the attention of the girls? Or of the teacher? Or do they just need to be loved?

Or is it because they have been socialized to believe that they are better than girls and so deserve more attention?

[There is an interesting neo-Freudian thesis here, to the effect that boys and men despise girls and women because they so desperately feel the need to obliterate from their consciousness the fact that their earliest emotional identification is with their mothers.

O’course I’m not a Freudian — just sayin’, ya know. But it might be worth asking our religious comrades whether this contributes in any way to the misogyny of judaism, christianity and islam (not to mention most of the other religions extant today).]

you seem to make nothing but unfounded assertions painting a picture of classrooms as one where males dominate while girls are hushed. In most "western" countries, that is just not the truth.

You and I have obviously frequented different classrooms.

"…any form of sex other than for procreation is degrading to women"

That damns me as a lesbian, doesn’t it? And, Mayakovsky, this is what’s known as ‘sex-negative feminism.’

... "feminism" without a class perspective … is downright reactionary...

Yes it is, because it makes people think very silly things, like imagining Hilary Clinton suffers male oppression in the same way as a Filipina garment worker in a sweatshop in Melbourne, or do very silly things, like Naomi Wolf putting on hijab and rhapsodizing about “how it set her free.”

Fortunately one canhave a perspective that is both feminist and socialist.

RaÃºl Duke

23rd June 2010, 00:31

Firstly, a word on the general topic of feminism, ‘classless,’ ‘utopian’ or otherwise.

The ideal of feminism that I know purely and simply involves challenging the ‘roles, rules and rituals’ that structure ’traditional’ gendered behaviour with a view to making them less of a strait-jacket. My feminism is one in which everyone gets to pursue who they are without society wagging a finger and telling us who or what we should be, and which frees men to be themselves just as much as it frees women.

Observing the personal experiences of my father, I can attest that men also face tremendous problems in our sexist societies — problems created by a male “code of behaviour” relating to such things as jobs, money, health, and even interests, that can grind them into the ground, both in their youth and in their adulthood. Good men — like my father — struggle heroically with this, against generations of programming. Weak men, and bad ones, gradually short out — and flip out. The good men learn to pretend, the others are unable to. Some men find a way to derail the criticism, some find the strength to ignore it, and for others it is the bane of their lives. The smarter ones develop the tools to question these values, but it’s hard to have faith in your questions when it seems like everyone around you, including some women, believes that men ‘should’ be strong, aggressive, unemotional, anti-intellectual bozos.

And some men, of course, just love ‘traditional’ patterns of gender relations. This doesn’t make them ‘strong’ — more often it just makes them bastards.

You are quite perceptive here — I just think you are thinking about 50 years too late.

It saddens me just how puritanical many of those on the Left actually are. It is almost as if, though we are ready to overturn the world in every other sphere, some of us are desperate to maintain an almost Victorian ‘respectability’ when it comes to matters sexual. It’s as if such comrades know that S-E-X is their Achilles’ heel when trying to publicize their views.

Mind you, there is a dose or two of Victorian priggishness in the writings of ole Karl himself (“The standardization of the working day must include the restriction of female labour … otherwise it could only mean the exclusion of women from branches of industry … that are objectionable morally for the female sex”), while Engels’ homophobia endears him to the more puritanical sections of the Left.

I’m glad someone knows who Taylor Lautner is (I’m not all that keen on vampires). Three answers, Ztrain — first, most girls who talk about Mr Lautner are probably talking in terms about how “warm and, like, gooey inside” he makes them feel, not about the size of the bulge in his underwear or about how they want to be ‘filled up’ by that bulge. That is the preserve of older girls/women (or more aware younger ones), and I will give you a facetious answer here — women have realized that men will rarely modify their own behaviour toward women, so they have simply ‘put the boot on the other foot,’ and started to talk about men merely in terms of their body parts. Payback’s a *****, hey? But, seriously, it’s all about the commodification of individuals that occurs regularly in class society.

So when a man says, “I don’t trust anything that bleeds for x-number-of-days and doesn’t die,” he’s OK, but when I say, “Do you really think a SANE supreme being would fabricate a Hairy Brick, add on “dangly bits” almost as an afterthought and then call it the Acme of Creation — let alone give it dominion over other creatures?” I’m creating ‘an anti male sexist climate’?

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when my students have to walk past the boys’ school to catcalls based on their appearance or physical attributes, measured against the anorexic — and often airbrushed — body shape of the supermodels, which is offered up by capitalist media as “to-die-for”?

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women hold a meeting about matters which are important to them (but are ‘irrelevant’ to men) and have to put up with half-a-dozen men playing the fool outside the door with comments like, “What ya need is a good fuck, luv!”

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women can’t sit in a bar without being harassed to death by males eager to paint themselves as “the best thing since sliced bread”? [Some of us don’t actually enjoy being “pursued and won over” — read “annoyed to distraction and bored shitless” — and some men seem to find the word ‘no’ unintelligible, or believe that it really means ‘yes.’]

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women feel that they have to avoid going to certain places, wearing certain things, or acting in certain ways lest they ‘provoke’ an attack by men? Men not only use the act of rape to humiliate and destroy women, they also use the threat of rape to prevent us from participating fully in all aspects of life. Most of us experience this threatened feeling at random during our lives — it doesn’t take being in the USSR in 1941, or in Bosnia or South-Central Africa; sometimes a visit to a pub, or a ‘friend’s’ BBQ can be threatening enough, and attacks can occur because one is working late, or wearing a short skirt or ‘revealing’ blouse, or “sending out signals,” or… — and it is this very randomness (you never know when you’re going to be at risk), that justifies the feminist claim that women live under the threat of rape every day of their lives. Most of us develop a sixth sense about such situations/people and exercise care, but we shouldn’t have to modify our behaviour unreasonably (“However we dress, wherever we go/’Yes’ means ‘yes’ and ‘no’ means ‘no’!”).

[And before you start, I know that men are raped too, for exactly the same reasons — power, control, and the desire to humiliate and destroy. And, yes, it is harder for the victims of such rapes to come forward — although it most definitely shouldn’t be.]

Oh, and I suppose that when African-American Stokely Carmichael was asked what position women should play in the civil-rights movement of the 1960s and replied ‘prone,’ he was not creating a ‘sexist climate’? (I’ll be generous and credit the man with actually knowing the difference between ‘prone – on one’s face’ and ‘supine – on one’s back.’ He may then simply have been describing his preferred method, as a self-proclaimed ‘top dog,’ of ‘taking’ ‘his’ ‘*****es’).

When a substantial proportion of men (hopefully outside of RevLeft) still believe that coercing a woman into having sex is not ‘violence,’ and a smaller, though still not inconsiderable, number believe that women actually enjoy rape, we definitely have a ‘sexist climate,’ Comrade.

Oh, it’s an anti-male ‘sexist climate’ that disturbs you?

If you mean that you feel intimidated by women, Ztrain, please say so — many men do, and they go into absolute toxic meltdown when they think that women are “banding together” against them. Apparently, groups of men banding together against women is ‘natural,’ but women in class society must be prevented from doing the same by every method available, from ridiculing their attempts to understand their oppression and articulate a response to it — the capitalist media’s attack on all forms of ‘feminism’ being a prime example — to creating rivalries between individual women, encouraging them to compete for ‘favour’ and ‘status,’ to singling out the more outspoken for ‘special treatment’ to “put them in their place.”

Throughout much of the world, and for much of human history, women have known that opposing men, let alone ‘banding together’ against them, is a recipe not merely for social death, but often for physical extermination. Because women are not stupid and actually enjoy being alive they play games, like

The girl who, at 9 or 10, is a strong and competent woman-in-the-making and suddenly, at 14 or 15, becomes a passive admirer of male tomfoolery, because she knows that (most) adolescent males have no time for strong and competent women;
The woman who sits in a bar listening in pretended fascination to the half-drunk ramblings of the latest self promoting male who makes her his target, because she knows how lethally dangerous (some) men can be when their egos are bruised — and not every dangerous guy wears a label, so…;
The woman who stays with her battering boyfriend/husband, because she knows that he will hunt her down and kill her if she leaves;
Even sadder, the woman who convinces herself that this same thug loves her, and that his battering ‘proves’ that he loves her.

And so, seeing that such behaviour keeps them and their sisters alive, women hand this Stockholm Syndrome pattern of behaviour down to their daughters.

Do I see all boys as selfish yobbos or all men as rapists, batterers or murderers? Do I see all women as victims, or as victims all the time? No, of course not. I am merely pointing out a pattern in our societies, extolled as ‘natural’ by some and as theologically-approved by others, which ‘feminism’ has questioned and intimated a way out of. If questioning these ‘traditional’ attitudes and behaviours seems to have created an “anti-male sexist climate,” so be it.

The latter.

A few — not a large number, I’d have to say, without any proof whatsoever. I imagine that “women who hate men so much” would most frequently remain celibate, especially given the enormous prejudice against lesbians in class society.

In fact, I find it sad that more women do not take advantage of experiencing gay relationships, either because of the heterosexism of the wider society or for socio-economic reasons.

Firstly, let me apologize to the Neanderthals for linking them with the various Men’s Movements — I was doing the Neanderthals a disservice!

Secondly, yes, the “Men’s Movement” is miniscule — since class society is primarily patriarchal, there would seem to be no aching need for a movement to liberate men from a system where things work to their advantage.

Yet there is — just as there is a ‘movement’ composed of primarily white middle-class people who claim that they are ‘victims’ of ‘reverse racism’ or of christians who whinge because, under the “authoritarian regime of political correctness,” they are “not allowed” to put up Christmas trees or their children to sing carols. Most ‘masculinist’ theorists are ‘me-too-ists’ whose lament is “we men have it just as bad as you women do.” I used to wonder why — if they thought that they were victims of a ‘sexist society’ — such men didn’t embrace the movement that aimed to weaken the bonds of that sexism, i.e., feminism. Then I remembered that there were ‘masculinists’ of another order too —determinists (either biological or theological) who think that ‘male supremacy’ and gender-specific behaviour is mandated by ‘Nature’ or by their invisible friends. The two types are actually two sides of the same coin — both are happy with the uneven ground of ‘traditional’ gendered behaviour and see no reason to change, since it is their gender that benefits from it.This was brought home to me with a shock at an early age when I learned that one of the ‘me-too-ists’ (whose work I was trying to approach ‘sympathetically’) was a prolific writer of internet manuals-of-instruction on the D/s lifestyle. Because, as we all know, “women really want to be dominated by men — and men really need to be supported by women.”

And — on a longer timescale — one can make a decent argument that women are, on average, smaller and slighter than men because men have actively selected women with such body types as ‘ideal’ breeding partners.

‘More frequently’? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Yes, female-to-male domestic violence does occur (as does female-to-female domestic violence and male-to-male domestic violence — and non-white-to-white domestic violence) and, yes, it is a crime too — or should be, if it isn’t recognized as such. But ignoring the fact that male-to-female violence (domestic or otherwise) is far more frequent — and, in many cases, ignored, if not actually sanctioned by, the wider society in which the parties live — and that finding a solution to it is more urgent, is simply whingeing ‘me-too-ism’ of the type described above and amounts to sitting on one’s arse doing nothing “until all problems can be solved.”

Women discriminate against/are nasty/’*****y’/antipathetic to other women as a way to curry favour and advance in male-dominated hierarchies (I can’t relate to this except on the basis of “I understand why it’s happening — but it lessens your humanity to do it, woman, so please don’t!”).

Women do get raped in prison, both by staff and by other prisoners — because rape is about power, not sex. It is used as a method of establishing a hierarchy of dominance there as it is in men’s prisons — it is also a method by which men do the same to women (and, on occasion, to other men) in the non-custodial world.

There is no big fuss made of it because — as you’ve said — it is assumed that all prisoners deserve to be in prison.

Thank you — I have been saying as much for as long as I have been posting on this site.

Moreover, not only is ‘biologically-determined sexuality’ ahistorical and un-Marxist, it is also strategically dangerous (I have argued this elsewhere — http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=2067)

So the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of my ten years experience as a teacher, reinforced by the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of friends and colleagues, which all point to adolescent boys tending toward attention-seeking behaviour, disruption of the learning environment and often blatant hostility toward female teachers needs to be statistically verified for you to accept it?

I have ‘research’ to back me up, but I don’t bother slinging it around — ‘research’ in matters sociological can be skewed by a myriad of factors, not least by the tendency of researchers to choose their target groups, frame their questions and interpret the responses they get so that their original assumptions are confirmed.

Moreover the same researchers can produce different results at different times — witness the ever-shifting debate between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture.’ Or the same research can be ‘spun’ to produce different results — the AAUW (American Association of University Women) reports that argued that girls are better off in single-gender schools were spun in press releases to read the opposite. This merely reflects the fact that ‘research’ is usually tailored to larger socio-economic currents.

But here are some studies you may want to read — Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls (ed Susan Morse); Educating Girls — Practice and Research (GC Leder and SN Sampson, eds); A Critical Look at Same Sex Schools for Girl;, BettyWhite; Failing at Fairness, Sadker & Sadker; Building Self: Adolescent Girls and Self-Esteem, Sundra Flansburg 1993; Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) Report into Senior Secondary Achievement in Member Schools of the Alliance of Girls’ Schools Australasia; Boys and Girls Perform Better in Same Sex Schools, K Rowe (head of ACER at the time he gave this address);Gender differences in mathematics - attitudes of secondary school students (Steinbeck & Gwizdala, 1995 in School Science and Mathematics 95); Underestimating youth’s commitment to schools and society: Toward a more differentiated view (Good, Nichols & Sabers, 1999 in Social Psychology of Education An International Journal 3);Single-sex schooling and educational effectiveness: A research overview, (Moore, Piper & Schaefer, 1993 in Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research, DK Hollinger (ed)); and, of course, the (US) NASSPE site.

If you really want to argue that “boys and girls have different styles of learning” — and there is a body of ‘research’ that supports this view — why not argue for single-gendered education?

Please don’t reply with the stock answer that co-education aids in ‘socialization’ or ‘teaching members of both genders to work together.’ Sure, socialization is necessary and wonderful, but if you claim to be a Marxist, then you will know that people are socialized in ways that benefit the ruling class — under capitalism conformity is enforced (usually in the Anglosphere dressed up as consensus), obedience to authority is enjoined, individual competiveness is enthroned as the ultimate virtue … and boys and girls are indoctrinated into patterns of aggressive and conciliatory behaviour respectively. If you are not a Marxist, you will doubtless regard the sometimes comical and sometimes tragic behaviour of adolescent males and adolescent females in mixed settings as ‘natural.’ Girls in capitalist society ‘learn’ to take the back seat in any situation where project ‘teams’ are of mixed genders, or risk the consequences.

Moreover, academic achievement is just as important as ‘socialization,’ and, as I have pointed out on several occasions, neither gender is reaching its full potential. There is also substantial research to show that boys alsobenefit from single-gendered education. I often wonder whether men who oppose single-gender education do so because they are comfortable with the current paradigm whereby they can dominate the schoolroom as they try to dominate other areas.

But I repeat what I said in my earlier post — “Note that I am not denying that most of these problems are exacerbated by capitalist social relations, and will be attenuated by capitalism’s overthrow — I am merely pointing out that, even after the Revolution, there will need to be protracted effort (‘a leap in social consciousness’) to ensure equal educational opportunities for both genders.”

Or it could ‘prove’ that females are determined to succeed even against the ‘sabotage’ of their male peers.

Agreed, there aren’t enough male teachers — but that is a result of how my profession is devalued under capitalism. A teacher earns a fraction of what can be earned in other professions. In capitalist society, males tend to spurn teaching in favour of more highly-paid jobs, and they tend to get them because the capitalist employer assumes that they have families to support (which may be true) and argues that females are ‘incapable’(a reason rarely offered — overtly — these days) or are ‘unreliable’ (they may go off to have —shock, horror —babies). So we have a vicious circle — men don’t go into teaching because they can earn more elsewhere, therefore teaching is seen as less ‘valuable’ in the minds of male students, therefore…

But there is also a sexist ‘division of labour’ within the teaching profession. Women are over-represented at the early-childhood level (because looking after small children is ‘women’s work’) but their numbers thin out the closer one gets to the end of — co-educational — secondary school. Both boys and girls are socialized to regard adult males as having greater ‘authority’ than females.

Furthermore, many men, who would prefer to continue teaching, are pressured to go into ‘administration’ instead. This does disadvantage boys, for the reasons outlined in the above two paragraphs.

Read this part of my post again please. I said, “In co-educational classrooms the boys will often be the ones who raise their hands or call out to answer questions (or simply to gain attention) and will sometimes be quite insistent in doing so. Many teachers will simply give in to this dynamic — male teachers because it is ‘natural’ to them, and female teachers because it “makes life easier.”

So, tell me why you think boys do this — are they trying to compete with other boys? Or with the teacher? Are they trying to gain the attention of the girls? Or of the teacher? Or do they just need to be loved?

Or is it because they have been socialized to believe that they are better than girls and so deserve more attention?

[There is an interesting neo-Freudian thesis here, to the effect that boys and men despise girls and women because they so desperately feel the need to obliterate from their consciousness the fact that their earliest emotional identification is with their mothers.

O’course I’m not a Freudian — just sayin’, ya know. But it might be worth asking our religious comrades whether this contributes in any way to the misogyny of judaism, christianity and islam (not to mention most of the other religions extant today).]

You and I have obviously frequented different classrooms.

That damns me as a lesbian, doesn’t it? And, Mayakovsky, this is what’s known as ‘sex-negative feminism.’

Yes it is, because it makes people think very silly things, like imagining Hilary Clinton suffers male oppression in the same way as a Filipina garment worker in a sweatshop in Melbourne, or do very silly things, like Naomi Wolf putting on hijab and rhapsodizing about “how it set her free.”

Fortunately one canhave a perspective that is both feminist and socialist.

Interesting and I agree.

I'm quite curious why some communists feel the need to state "feminism is anti-communist" or whatever...what drives them so?

Spanishleft

29th June 2010, 17:49

Hiratsuka

29th June 2010, 18:13

From my perspective, feminism currently suffers from the same faults of all identity movements: it's so focused on one community's needs (in this case, gynocentric) that it intimidates and even attacks others (men). The "I support sexism against men" argument an alleged "leftist" argued above is just one example.

Foldered

29th June 2010, 22:32

I totally support you! My fear is, that feminism was and is used as a struggle for equality that capitalism considers less dangerous, but far more time consuming for the actual strugglers, than fight for class equality, racial equality or communism as a whole. Thus, feminism, while totally good and true as an idea, has come to alienate both women and men with communism, as it pitches the genders against each other, opposed to fighting for actual gender equality and communism.
Feminism isn't about pitting genders against each other.

Where do people get these ridiculous ideas of what feminism is from? It makes me think that the last remotely feminist text you've glanced at is Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Right of Women.

Bad Grrrl Agro

30th June 2010, 07:05

Firstly, a word on the general topic of feminism, ‘classless,’ ‘utopian’ or otherwise.

The ideal of feminism that I know purely and simply involves challenging the ‘roles, rules and rituals’ that structure ’traditional’ gendered behaviour with a view to making them less of a strait-jacket. My feminism is one in which everyone gets to pursue who they are without society wagging a finger and telling us who or what we should be, and which frees men to be themselves just as much as it frees women.

Observing the personal experiences of my father, I can attest that men also face tremendous problems in our sexist societies — problems created by a male “code of behaviour” relating to such things as jobs, money, health, and even interests, that can grind them into the ground, both in their youth and in their adulthood. Good men — like my father — struggle heroically with this, against generations of programming. Weak men, and bad ones, gradually short out — and flip out. The good men learn to pretend, the others are unable to. Some men find a way to derail the criticism, some find the strength to ignore it, and for others it is the bane of their lives. The smarter ones develop the tools to question these values, but it’s hard to have faith in your questions when it seems like everyone around you, including some women, believes that men ‘should’ be strong, aggressive, unemotional, anti-intellectual bozos.

And some men, of course, just love ‘traditional’ patterns of gender relations. This doesn’t make them ‘strong’ — more often it just makes them bastards.

You are quite perceptive here — I just think you are thinking about 50 years too late.

It saddens me just how puritanical many of those on the Left actually are. It is almost as if, though we are ready to overturn the world in every other sphere, some of us are desperate to maintain an almost Victorian ‘respectability’ when it comes to matters sexual. It’s as if such comrades know that S-E-X is their Achilles’ heel when trying to publicize their views.

Mind you, there is a dose or two of Victorian priggishness in the writings of ole Karl himself (“The standardization of the working day must include the restriction of female labour … otherwise it could only mean the exclusion of women from branches of industry … that are objectionable morally for the female sex”), while Engels’ homophobia endears him to the more puritanical sections of the Left.

I’m glad someone knows who Taylor Lautner is (I’m not all that keen on vampires). Three answers, Ztrain — first, most girls who talk about Mr Lautner are probably talking in terms about how “warm and, like, gooey inside” he makes them feel, not about the size of the bulge in his underwear or about how they want to be ‘filled up’ by that bulge. That is the preserve of older girls/women (or more aware younger ones), and I will give you a facetious answer here — women have realized that men will rarely modify their own behaviour toward women, so they have simply ‘put the boot on the other foot,’ and started to talk about men merely in terms of their body parts. Payback’s a *****, hey? But, seriously, it’s all about the commodification of individuals that occurs regularly in class society.

So when a man says, “I don’t trust anything that bleeds for x-number-of-days and doesn’t die,” he’s OK, but when I say, “Do you really think a SANE supreme being would fabricate a Hairy Brick, add on “dangly bits” almost as an afterthought and then call it the Acme of Creation — let alone give it dominion over other creatures?” I’m creating ‘an anti male sexist climate’?

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when my students have to walk past the boys’ school to catcalls based on their appearance or physical attributes, measured against the anorexic — and often airbrushed — body shape of the supermodels, which is offered up by capitalist media as “to-die-for”?

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women hold a meeting about matters which are important to them (but are ‘irrelevant’ to men) and have to put up with half-a-dozen men playing the fool outside the door with comments like, “What ya need is a good fuck, luv!”

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women can’t sit in a bar without being harassed to death by males eager to paint themselves as “the best thing since sliced bread”? [Some of us don’t actually enjoy being “pursued and won over” — read “annoyed to distraction and bored shitless” — and some men seem to find the word ‘no’ unintelligible, or believe that it really means ‘yes.’]

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women feel that they have to avoid going to certain places, wearing certain things, or acting in certain ways lest they ‘provoke’ an attack by men? Men not only use the act of rape to humiliate and destroy women, they also use the threat of rape to prevent us from participating fully in all aspects of life. Most of us experience this threatened feeling at random during our lives — it doesn’t take being in the USSR in 1941, or in Bosnia or South-Central Africa; sometimes a visit to a pub, or a ‘friend’s’ BBQ can be threatening enough, and attacks can occur because one is working late, or wearing a short skirt or ‘revealing’ blouse, or “sending out signals,” or… — and it is this very randomness (you never know when you’re going to be at risk), that justifies the feminist claim that women live under the threat of rape every day of their lives. Most of us develop a sixth sense about such situations/people and exercise care, but we shouldn’t have to modify our behaviour unreasonably (“However we dress, wherever we go/’Yes’ means ‘yes’ and ‘no’ means ‘no’!”).

[And before you start, I know that men are raped too, for exactly the same reasons — power, control, and the desire to humiliate and destroy. And, yes, it is harder for the victims of such rapes to come forward — although it most definitely shouldn’t be.]

Oh, and I suppose that when African-American Stokely Carmichael was asked what position women should play in the civil-rights movement of the 1960s and replied ‘prone,’ he was not creating a ‘sexist climate’? (I’ll be generous and credit the man with actually knowing the difference between ‘prone – on one’s face’ and ‘supine – on one’s back.’ He may then simply have been describing his preferred method, as a self-proclaimed ‘top dog,’ of ‘taking’ ‘his’ ‘*****es’).

When a substantial proportion of men (hopefully outside of RevLeft) still believe that coercing a woman into having sex is not ‘violence,’ and a smaller, though still not inconsiderable, number believe that women actually enjoy rape, we definitely have a ‘sexist climate,’ Comrade.

Oh, it’s an anti-male ‘sexist climate’ that disturbs you?

If you mean that you feel intimidated by women, Ztrain, please say so — many men do, and they go into absolute toxic meltdown when they think that women are “banding together” against them. Apparently, groups of men banding together against women is ‘natural,’ but women in class society must be prevented from doing the same by every method available, from ridiculing their attempts to understand their oppression and articulate a response to it — the capitalist media’s attack on all forms of ‘feminism’ being a prime example — to creating rivalries between individual women, encouraging them to compete for ‘favour’ and ‘status,’ to singling out the more outspoken for ‘special treatment’ to “put them in their place.”

Throughout much of the world, and for much of human history, women have known that opposing men, let alone ‘banding together’ against them, is a recipe not merely for social death, but often for physical extermination. Because women are not stupid and actually enjoy being alive they play games, like

The girl who, at 9 or 10, is a strong and competent woman-in-the-making and suddenly, at 14 or 15, becomes a passive admirer of male tomfoolery, because she knows that (most) adolescent males have no time for strong and competent women;
The woman who sits in a bar listening in pretended fascination to the half-drunk ramblings of the latest self promoting male who makes her his target, because she knows how lethally dangerous (some) men can be when their egos are bruised — and not every dangerous guy wears a label, so…;
The woman who stays with her battering boyfriend/husband, because she knows that he will hunt her down and kill her if she leaves;
Even sadder, the woman who convinces herself that this same thug loves her, and that his battering ‘proves’ that he loves her.

And so, seeing that such behaviour keeps them and their sisters alive, women hand this Stockholm Syndrome pattern of behaviour down to their daughters.

Do I see all boys as selfish yobbos or all men as rapists, batterers or murderers? Do I see all women as victims, or as victims all the time? No, of course not. I am merely pointing out a pattern in our societies, extolled as ‘natural’ by some and as theologically-approved by others, which ‘feminism’ has questioned and intimated a way out of. If questioning these ‘traditional’ attitudes and behaviours seems to have created an “anti-male sexist climate,” so be it.

The latter.

A few — not a large number, I’d have to say, without any proof whatsoever. I imagine that “women who hate men so much” would most frequently remain celibate, especially given the enormous prejudice against lesbians in class society.

In fact, I find it sad that more women do not take advantage of experiencing gay relationships, either because of the heterosexism of the wider society or for socio-economic reasons.

Firstly, let me apologize to the Neanderthals for linking them with the various Men’s Movements — I was doing the Neanderthals a disservice!

Secondly, yes, the “Men’s Movement” is miniscule — since class society is primarily patriarchal, there would seem to be no aching need for a movement to liberate men from a system where things work to their advantage.

Yet there is — just as there is a ‘movement’ composed of primarily white middle-class people who claim that they are ‘victims’ of ‘reverse racism’ or of christians who whinge because, under the “authoritarian regime of political correctness,” they are “not allowed” to put up Christmas trees or their children to sing carols. Most ‘masculinist’ theorists are ‘me-too-ists’ whose lament is “we men have it just as bad as you women do.” I used to wonder why — if they thought that they were victims of a ‘sexist society’ — such men didn’t embrace the movement that aimed to weaken the bonds of that sexism, i.e., feminism. Then I remembered that there were ‘masculinists’ of another order too —determinists (either biological or theological) who think that ‘male supremacy’ and gender-specific behaviour is mandated by ‘Nature’ or by their invisible friends. The two types are actually two sides of the same coin — both are happy with the uneven ground of ‘traditional’ gendered behaviour and see no reason to change, since it is their gender that benefits from it.This was brought home to me with a shock at an early age when I learned that one of the ‘me-too-ists’ (whose work I was trying to approach ‘sympathetically’) was a prolific writer of internet manuals-of-instruction on the D/s lifestyle. Because, as we all know, “women really want to be dominated by men — and men really need to be supported by women.”

And — on a longer timescale — one can make a decent argument that women are, on average, smaller and slighter than men because men have actively selected women with such body types as ‘ideal’ breeding partners.

‘More frequently’? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Yes, female-to-male domestic violence does occur (as does female-to-female domestic violence and male-to-male domestic violence — and non-white-to-white domestic violence) and, yes, it is a crime too — or should be, if it isn’t recognized as such. But ignoring the fact that male-to-female violence (domestic or otherwise) is far more frequent — and, in many cases, ignored, if not actually sanctioned by, the wider society in which the parties live — and that finding a solution to it is more urgent, is simply whingeing ‘me-too-ism’ of the type described above and amounts to sitting on one’s arse doing nothing “until all problems can be solved.”

Women discriminate against/are nasty/’*****y’/antipathetic to other women as a way to curry favour and advance in male-dominated hierarchies (I can’t relate to this except on the basis of “I understand why it’s happening — but it lessens your humanity to do it, woman, so please don’t!”).

Women do get raped in prison, both by staff and by other prisoners — because rape is about power, not sex. It is used as a method of establishing a hierarchy of dominance there as it is in men’s prisons — it is also a method by which men do the same to women (and, on occasion, to other men) in the non-custodial world.

There is no big fuss made of it because — as you’ve said — it is assumed that all prisoners deserve to be in prison.

Thank you — I have been saying as much for as long as I have been posting on this site.

Moreover, not only is ‘biologically-determined sexuality’ ahistorical and un-Marxist, it is also strategically dangerous (I have argued this elsewhere — http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=2067)

So the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of my ten years experience as a teacher, reinforced by the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of friends and colleagues, which all point to adolescent boys tending toward attention-seeking behaviour, disruption of the learning environment and often blatant hostility toward female teachers needs to be statistically verified for you to accept it?

I have ‘research’ to back me up, but I don’t bother slinging it around — ‘research’ in matters sociological can be skewed by a myriad of factors, not least by the tendency of researchers to choose their target groups, frame their questions and interpret the responses they get so that their original assumptions are confirmed.

Moreover the same researchers can produce different results at different times — witness the ever-shifting debate between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture.’ Or the same research can be ‘spun’ to produce different results — the AAUW (American Association of University Women) reports that argued that girls are better off in single-gender schools were spun in press releases to read the opposite. This merely reflects the fact that ‘research’ is usually tailored to larger socio-economic currents.

But here are some studies you may want to read — Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls (ed Susan Morse); Educating Girls — Practice and Research (GC Leder and SN Sampson, eds); A Critical Look at Same Sex Schools for Girl;, BettyWhite; Failing at Fairness, Sadker & Sadker; Building Self: Adolescent Girls and Self-Esteem, Sundra Flansburg 1993; Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) Report into Senior Secondary Achievement in Member Schools of the Alliance of Girls’ Schools Australasia; Boys and Girls Perform Better in Same Sex Schools, K Rowe (head of ACER at the time he gave this address);Gender differences in mathematics - attitudes of secondary school students (Steinbeck & Gwizdala, 1995 in School Science and Mathematics 95); Underestimating youth’s commitment to schools and society: Toward a more differentiated view (Good, Nichols & Sabers, 1999 in Social Psychology of Education An International Journal 3);Single-sex schooling and educational effectiveness: A research overview, (Moore, Piper & Schaefer, 1993 in Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research, DK Hollinger (ed)); and, of course, the (US) NASSPE site.

If you really want to argue that “boys and girls have different styles of learning” — and there is a body of ‘research’ that supports this view — why not argue for single-gendered education?

Please don’t reply with the stock answer that co-education aids in ‘socialization’ or ‘teaching members of both genders to work together.’ Sure, socialization is necessary and wonderful, but if you claim to be a Marxist, then you will know that people are socialized in ways that benefit the ruling class — under capitalism conformity is enforced (usually in the Anglosphere dressed up as consensus), obedience to authority is enjoined, individual competiveness is enthroned as the ultimate virtue … and boys and girls are indoctrinated into patterns of aggressive and conciliatory behaviour respectively. If you are not a Marxist, you will doubtless regard the sometimes comical and sometimes tragic behaviour of adolescent males and adolescent females in mixed settings as ‘natural.’ Girls in capitalist society ‘learn’ to take the back seat in any situation where project ‘teams’ are of mixed genders, or risk the consequences.

Moreover, academic achievement is just as important as ‘socialization,’ and, as I have pointed out on several occasions, neither gender is reaching its full potential. There is also substantial research to show that boys alsobenefit from single-gendered education. I often wonder whether men who oppose single-gender education do so because they are comfortable with the current paradigm whereby they can dominate the schoolroom as they try to dominate other areas.

But I repeat what I said in my earlier post — “Note that I am not denying that most of these problems are exacerbated by capitalist social relations, and will be attenuated by capitalism’s overthrow — I am merely pointing out that, even after the Revolution, there will need to be protracted effort (‘a leap in social consciousness’) to ensure equal educational opportunities for both genders.”

Or it could ‘prove’ that females are determined to succeed even against the ‘sabotage’ of their male peers.

Agreed, there aren’t enough male teachers — but that is a result of how my profession is devalued under capitalism. A teacher earns a fraction of what can be earned in other professions. In capitalist society, males tend to spurn teaching in favour of more highly-paid jobs, and they tend to get them because the capitalist employer assumes that they have families to support (which may be true) and argues that females are ‘incapable’(a reason rarely offered — overtly — these days) or are ‘unreliable’ (they may go off to have —shock, horror —babies). So we have a vicious circle — men don’t go into teaching because they can earn more elsewhere, therefore teaching is seen as less ‘valuable’ in the minds of male students, therefore…

But there is also a sexist ‘division of labour’ within the teaching profession. Women are over-represented at the early-childhood level (because looking after small children is ‘women’s work’) but their numbers thin out the closer one gets to the end of — co-educational — secondary school. Both boys and girls are socialized to regard adult males as having greater ‘authority’ than females.

Furthermore, many men, who would prefer to continue teaching, are pressured to go into ‘administration’ instead. This does disadvantage boys, for the reasons outlined in the above two paragraphs.

Read this part of my post again please. I said, “In co-educational classrooms the boys will often be the ones who raise their hands or call out to answer questions (or simply to gain attention) and will sometimes be quite insistent in doing so. Many teachers will simply give in to this dynamic — male teachers because it is ‘natural’ to them, and female teachers because it “makes life easier.”

So, tell me why you think boys do this — are they trying to compete with other boys? Or with the teacher? Are they trying to gain the attention of the girls? Or of the teacher? Or do they just need to be loved?

Or is it because they have been socialized to believe that they are better than girls and so deserve more attention?

[There is an interesting neo-Freudian thesis here, to the effect that boys and men despise girls and women because they so desperately feel the need to obliterate from their consciousness the fact that their earliest emotional identification is with their mothers.

O’course I’m not a Freudian — just sayin’, ya know. But it might be worth asking our religious comrades whether this contributes in any way to the misogyny of judaism, christianity and islam (not to mention most of the other religions extant today).]

You and I have obviously frequented different classrooms.

That damns me as a lesbian, doesn’t it? And, Mayakovsky, this is what’s known as ‘sex-negative feminism.’

Yes it is, because it makes people think very silly things, like imagining Hilary Clinton suffers male oppression in the same way as a Filipina garment worker in a sweatshop in Melbourne, or do very silly things, like Naomi Wolf putting on hijab and rhapsodizing about “how it set her free.”

Fortunately one canhave a perspective that is both feminist and socialist.

While I can't say with you or anyone in the entire world (ever) that I agree 100% You come really fucking close to it and articulate it better than I could. I just wanted to give you extra props and thank you extra much. With much of what you have mentioned, I have experienced some similarities as an MtF transsexual. (i.e. the issues pertaining to rape and violence and other aggressive attacks) Also, while I'm not someone who's well educated in academia, I can also see that there are severe problems in a male-dominated sexist world. But since you are better at making these points than myself, I'll just give my 'thank you'. Gracias!

Hiratsuka

30th June 2010, 20:38

Feminism isn't about pitting genders against each other.

Where do people get these ridiculous ideas of what feminism is from? It makes me think that the last remotely feminist text you've glanced at is Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Right of Women.

The real pertinent question is: can someone support gender equality and not identify as a feminist?

I believe the answer is yes. As to why someone would disassociate from the feminist movement, some reasons have already been listed out.

Hiratsuka

30th June 2010, 20:41

First I want to say thank you for the well-thought out post, Salabra. I hope you can excuse any grammatical mistakes in my response. I'm really tired.

Yes, female-to-male domestic violence does occur (as does female-to-female domestic violence and male-to-male domestic violence — and non-white-to-white domestic violence) and, yes, it is a crime too — or should be, if it isn’t recognized as such. But ignoring the fact that male-to-female violence (domestic or otherwise) is far more frequent — and, in many cases, ignored, if not actually sanctioned by, the wider society in which the parties live — and that finding a solution to it is more urgent, is simply whingeing ‘me-too-ism’ of the type described above and amounts to sitting on one’s arse doing nothing “until all problems can be solved.”Male-on-female brutality is sanctioned? Uh, I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole. Luckily, ABC already did a story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGZIQaCaW0I)on how most people can't stand seeing a male abuse a woman but will assume the man is at fault if the opposite is true. Let's just say this plays eerily close into the "blame the victim" rape scenarios.

I quoted this part of your quote in particular to highlight why a lot of men have serious misgivings about feminism.

Observing the personal experiences of my father, I can attest that men also face tremendous problems in our sexist societies — problems created by a male “code of behaviour” relating to such things as jobs, money, health, and even interests, that can grind them into the ground, both in their youth and in their adulthood. Good men — like my father — struggle heroically with this, against generations of programming. Weak men, and bad ones, gradually short out — and flip out. The good men learn to pretend, the others are unable to. Some men find a way to derail the criticism, some find the strength to ignore it, and for others it is the bane of their lives. The smarter ones develop the tools to question these values, but it’s hard to have faith in your questions when it seems like everyone around you, including some women, believes that men ‘should’ be strong, aggressive, unemotional, anti-intellectual bozos.

And some men, of course, just love ‘traditional’ patterns of gender relations. This doesn’t make them ‘strong’ — more often it just makes them bastards.While I greatly appreciate your detailed response, this paragraph I quoted above exemplifies my reasonings for not being a feminist: when issues facing cismen are discussed, the main culprit sticking its tentacles into every issues is always patriarchy - as in other men. I view that target, when isolated, as just a simplistic cause of concern in the modern era for people in countries like the United States. Norms which were established under patriarchy are not necessarily in continuance because of patriarchy. Double standards are codified by the very same people who are most critical of patriarchy, in fact. Some women (and men) want to see women selectively benefit from both empowerment and patriarchal stereotypes - either intentionally or by ignorance. The example above about men being hit more often by women than visa versa is one example.

With little exceptions, patriarchy's only legal face remains in issues that are typically detrimental to men, like divorce law, child custody, or jail sentences. Barring warped states like Florida interfering in Roe v Wade, the United States government does not discriminate against women [and even then, abortion is such a sex-specific topic that I'm hesitant to call it discrimination so much as impeding on rights]. It does, however, quite unabashedly target men when they complain about domestic abuse or unfair custodial practices. And what is that I see from sites like Pendagon or Feministing? Ridicule of even discussing these topics. It's thrown under "Male Rights" jargon. I can assure you I'm not a "masculinist," but I want to hear these topics discussed.

These issues are both a component of patriarchy and of something new - a sort of selfish chauvinism that sprung forth from the old ways of oppression but now give token benefits to women. And until feminism realizes these changing circumstances and becomes critical of those men and women who uphold privileges that are bestowed until women as something more than patriarchy (which is increasingly sounding a lot like the dreaded m word, 'matriarchy'), I won't identify as a feminist. Nor will most men, I think.

Foldered

1st July 2010, 01:11

The real pertinent question is: can someone support gender equality and not identify as a feminist?
I would argue that the hesitancy and reluctancy surrounding identifying as a feminist is because of how skewed feminism is in the mainstream (through hegemonic ideologies in media and so on) as well as a lack of motivation to challenge their own assumptions that are founded from skewed definitions of feminism.
In other words, I think too many people are comfortable with their ignorance; in fact, so comfortable that they are willing to challenge feminism as a concept without even attempting to understand it.
It's rather depressing- and at this point exhausting- to see people who had, and have, a drive to explore Leftism despite hegemonic ideologies in media which work very hard to demonize the Left to choose to remain ignorant towards the feminist movement and even to challenge it without having an actual understanding of feminism.

Of course you can support gender equality and not identify as a feminist, just like you can support social equality without being leftist, but why the hell would you do that to yourself?

Also, I'm skeptical of your use of an ABC special to support what you say...

Hiratsuka

1st July 2010, 05:14

That's fine:

http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Women are more likely than men to stalk, attack and psychologically abuse their partners, according to a University of Florida (http://www.ufl.edu) study that finds college women have a new view of the dating scene.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 273 scholarly investigations: 212 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

The general consensus seems to be that women abuse men more often, but men hurt women more by being stronger and more aggressive. Both cases of abuse are emphatically distasteful, but the ABC video points out how the media glamorizes female violence against men.

RaÃºl Duke

1st July 2010, 07:19

I would argue that the hesitancy and reluctancy surrounding identifying as a feminist is because of how skewed feminism is in the mainstream (through hegemonic ideologies in media and so on) as well as a lack of motivation to challenge their own assumptions that are founded from skewed definitions of feminism.
In other words, I think too many people are comfortable with their ignorance; in fact, so comfortable that they are willing to challenge feminism as a concept without even attempting to understand it. This reminds me of the slight trend in society to see women claim they're not feminists or against feminism and yet advocate and praise the same positions/ideas/etc of feminism; because people have this idea that feminism is "man-hating female supremacy ideology" when it mostly ain't not (just as the black power movement mostly wasn't racist black nationalism alla so-called New "Black Panther" Party).

Perhaps this trend has seeped into the left through some other form which examples of it could be seen on this thread.

1st July 2010, 08:04

This reminds me of the slight trend in society to see women claim they're not feminists or against feminism and yet advocate and praise the same positions/ideas/etc of feminism; because people have this idea that feminism is "man-hating female supremacy ideology" when it mostly ain't not (just as the black power movement mostly wasn't racist black nationalism alla so-called New "Black Panther" Party).

Perhaps this trend has seeped into the left through some other form which examples of it could be seen on this thread.

I don't think so, actually, and I resent the last however-many posts which have essentially sought to psychoanalyze this position when it comes from the mouths of radical women and write it off as a capitulation to the dominant ideology, rather than making any attempt to understand it in political terms. It is easier, I think, to define Feminism subjectively as simply a movement for women's liberation rather than looking at its role (and class composition) historically. And actually, I used to do this (i.e. consider myself a Feminist in accordance with a completely subjective definition and insinuate that people opposed to Feminism from the left must be crypto-sexists or just general pushovers), although it was mainly the result of very bad experiences I had with some platformists who took this position either alongside, or as a justification for, extremely unapologetically chauvinistic attitudes toward women. I have outlined, earlier in this thread, how I see the historical role of the Feminist movement and the class interests it ultimately represents, and why I no longer consider myself a Feminist. I have said that, insofar as the dominant forms of modern Feminism remain class-collaborationist movements seeking to unite working class women with petit-bourgeois and bourgeois women on the basis of gender and to win bourgeois rights and reforms within the framework of capitalism - insofar as they fail to see that the oppression of women (i.e. patriarchy) is fundamentally rooted in class society - Feminism will continue to be (and can only be) a movement which represents a particular faction of the ruling class and therefore offers no true solution to the oppression of women.

Invincible Summer

1st July 2010, 08:18

I read this passage (part of a longer chapter written for a text for my feminist theory class) and found it very interesting. I never thought about how it's possible to take on feminism as an identity rather than an ongoing struggle, and the futility of doing so.

It's basically speaking out against feminist lifestylism I suppose. bell hooks is a great writer though.

"Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It does not privilege women over men... Diverting energy from feminist movement that aims to change society, many women concentrate on the development of a counter-culture, a woman-centered world wherein participants have little contact with men. Such attempts do not indicate a respect or concern for the vast majority of women who are unable to integrate their cultural expressions with the visions offered by alternative woman-centered communities.

...

After assuming a "feminist" identity, women often seek to live the "feminist" lifestyle. These women do not see that it undermines feminist movement to project the assumption that "feminist" is but another pre-packaged role women can now select as they search for identity. The willingness to see feminism as a lifestyle choice rather than a political commitment reflects the class nature of the movement. It is not surprising that the vast majority of women who equate feminism with alternative lifestyle are from middle class backgrounds, unmarried, college-educated, often students who are without many of the social and economic responsibilities that working class and poor women... confront daily."
-- bell hooks

Also this quote I think is something that communists should think about as well. Also implicitly speaks out against lifestylism and making communes out in the boonies.

"If we go about creating an alternative culture without remaining in dialogue with others (and the historical circumstances that give rise to their identity) we have no reality check for our goals. We run the very real risk that the dominant ideology of the culture is re-duplicated in the feminist movement through cultural imperialism." -- Jeanne Gross

Adi Shankara

1st July 2010, 08:25

I most definitely think women should have as many choices and opportunities as men...but I also think that means if a woman doesn't want to be "equal", or if she wants to embrace traditional gender roles--that's fine too. afterall, it is her choice, isn't it? Isn't the feminist movement about providing women the choice to be how they want to be?

You'd be surprised how common the above sentiment is amongst a number (a minority, but a sizeable one) of women: www.takeninhand.com (http://www.takeninhand.com) is just an example. in my personal life, I have found many many more.

Personally, I like girls that allow me to make the decisions and turns in the relationship; I don't try to change a girl who isn't naturally like this for me, but I seek out those who are. why? because It's who I am, an opinionated dickhead like that, but that doesn't make me sexist; If I was gay, I'd want a submissive man, and if I was a woman, I'd want a submissive man or a submissive woman, for example. many relationships have a dominant and submissive partner; even amongst lesbians...but does that make the more dominant lesbian in that relationship "sexist"? of course not, that's silly, just like it's silly to assume that if the more dominant partner in a relationship is a man, that he is necessarily oppressing his girlfriend.

again. all in context. which is why if I see a woman in a traditional gender role, but she chooses this lifestyle soberly in her own capacity...I am not bothered in the slightest. Different spokes for different folks...

I hope it makes sense what I'm saying; I'm completely 100% for women's rights and liberation, and that means I'm for a woman's right to choose how she wishes her lifestyle to be like, even if that includes her wanting to be a submissive or to live in a traditional gender role. it shouldn't be imposed by society, but if an individual woman wants that, no one should stop her, as that in my opinion, is sexist (saying women have to be a certain way).

tl;dr if a woman wants to live like a 1950's housewife, she should have that right, just like if she wants to be the more dominant partner and be the primary breadwinner, that's fine too.

1st July 2010, 08:32

After assuming a "feminist" identity, women often seek to live the "feminist" lifestyle. These women do not see that it undermines feminist movement to project the assumption that "feminist" is but another pre-packaged role women can now select as they search for identity. The willingness to see feminism as a lifestyle choice rather than a political commitment reflects the class nature of the movement. It is not surprising that the vast majority of women who equate feminism with alternative lifestyle are from middle class backgrounds, unmarried, college-educated, often students who are without many of the social and economic responsiblities that worknig class and poor women... confront daily."
-- bell hooks

I can't tell if this is supposed to be in response to my post, but if it is, I don't see the relevance of it - I haven't equated Feminism with a "lifestyle choice".

manic expression

1st July 2010, 09:34

This reminds me of the slight trend in society to see women claim they're not feminists or against feminism and yet advocate and praise the same positions/ideas/etc of feminism; because people have this idea that feminism is "man-hating female supremacy ideology" when it mostly ain't not (just as the black power movement mostly wasn't racist black nationalism alla so-called New "Black Panther" Party).

Perhaps this trend has seeped into the left through some other form which examples of it could be seen on this thread.
Maybe it's not consciously anti-male, but when you have people seriously suggesting that men should be convicted of rape on nothing but the testimony of his partner (because he deserves to be punished for something else, you know), then yes, anti-male feelings do seem to seep to the surface and then some. Also, I see a lot of feminists condemn male sexuality itself...which doesn't strike me as solidarity.

Feminists don't seem to really get that their favorite sword cuts both ways. If men don't understand what women go through (basically true), then it's doubtless that some college professor feminist writer doesn't understand what men go through, either. And what happens when their writings inevitably don't resonate with males? Oh, it's just their privilege.

Honestly, I think feminism is a mess. It's already in the dustbin of history by virtue of its own self-confusion. It has no currency in the non-academic world. Revolutionaries can and should call themselves feminists and carry the torch of women's liberation, but feminism, as a political movement, has been dead. And I'm not sure I care.

This is off-topic, but the New BPP isn't as bad as its made out to be. I'm as white as they come and one of the New BPP members in NYC who came by to give us his support had no problem with me. IMO, I think they do good work and we should stand with them.

Invincible Summer

1st July 2010, 09:47

I can't tell if this is supposed to be in response to my post, but if it is, I don't see the relevance of it - I haven't equated Feminism with a "lifestyle choice".

Oh no it wasn't supposed to be a reply to you. I meant to include a preface to my post, sorry for any confusion.

(A)(_|

1st July 2010, 11:12

I don't get it. How can a movement that is centered around gender equality not fit in with an ideology that is strictly centered around pure and consistent equality. I think it's a mistake similar to pairing equality with property in any civil right's chart; equality is the nucleus of communism. I guess we can criticize certain currents of the movement; however it essentially remains one that fights for equality, something we should always support.

If we are speaking about feminism "the movement", then yes they are mostly bourgeois and liberal and I wouldn't rush to supporting them eg: movements in Iceland that have attempted to shut down strip clubs or whatever. The term feminism however I have nothing against; it is merely in the means by which we can achieve this gender equality, and pointing out what it necessarily entails. I like using the term radical feminist to separate from the other liberal currents, but that's just me.

Foldered

1st July 2010, 18:53

Feminism will continue to be (and can only be) a movement which represents a particular faction of the ruling class and therefore offers no true solution to the oppression of women.
Again, where do you get this from?
I think you think feminism is much more insular than it is.

Bad Grrrl Agro

1st July 2010, 20:08

I most definitely think women should have as many choices and opportunities as men...but I also think that means if a woman doesn't want to be "equal", or if she wants to embrace traditional gender roles--that's fine too. afterall, it is her choice, isn't it? Isn't the feminist movement about providing women the choice to be how they want to be?

You'd be surprised how common the above sentiment is amongst a number (a minority, but a sizeable one) of women is: www.takeninhand.com (http://www.takeninhand.com) is just an example. in my personal life, I have found many many more.

Personally, I like girls that allow me to make the decisions and turns in the relationship; I don't try to change a girl who isn't naturally like this for me, but I seek out those who are. why? because It's who I am, an opinionated dickhead like that, but that doesn't make me sexist; If I was gay, I'd want a submissive man, and if I was a woman, I'd want a submissive man or a submissive woman, for example. many relationships have a dominant and submissive partner; even amongst lesbians...but does that make the more dominant lesbian in that relationship "sexist"? of course not, that's silly, just like it's silly to assume that if the more dominant partner in a relationship is a man, that he is necessarily oppressing his girlfriend.

again. all in context. which is why if I see a woman in a traditional gender role, but she chooses this lifestyle soberly in her own capacity...I am not bothered in the slightest. Different spokes for different folks...

I hope it makes sense what I'm saying; I'm completely 100% for women's rights and liberation, and that means I'm for a woman's right to choose how she wishes her lifestyle to be like, even if that includes her wanting to be a submissive or to live in a traditional gender role. it shouldn't be imposed by society, but if an individual woman wants that, no one should stop her, as that in my opinion, is sexist (saying women have to be a certain way).

tl;dr if a woman wants to live like a 1950's housewife, she should have that right, just like if she wants to be the more dominant partner and be the primary breadwinner, that's fine too.

I actually kind of agree in a weird way. I would support the rights of women who want the right not to be in the traditional gender roles to do what they want with that. I personally like fitting into stereotypical submissive role, but that kind of goes for any relationship with a person of any gender. Though I also value sensitivity.

Adi Shankara

1st July 2010, 20:46

I actually kind of agree in a weird way. I would support the rights of women who want the right not to be in the traditional gender roles to do what they want with that. I personally like fitting into stereotypical submissive role, but that kind of goes for any relationship with a person of any gender. Though I also value sensitivity.

ha thanks! for once I don't feel like I'm sounding like a sexist pig :P But I highly value egalitarianism at a political and social level, but if a woman (or man) want to seek out a more dominant or more submissive partner, who am I (or anyone for that matter) to tell them "no that's sexist" or "no that's not a good way to live"?

also, I like fitting into the stereotypical dominant role (as stated). I value sensitivity as well, but I just know if I was to be with someone who was my emotional equal...we'd be arguing and bickering all the time :P

Bad Grrrl Agro

1st July 2010, 21:03

ha thanks! for once I don't feel like I'm sounding like a sexist pig :P But I highly value egalitarianism at a political and social level, but if a woman (or man) want to seek out a more dominant or more submissive partner, who am I (or anyone for that matter) to tell them "no that's sexist" or "no that's not a good way to live"?
It is kind of authoritarian to tell couples that they can't fit certain molds. However a couple wants to be, I have no objection as long as it's consentual.

also, I like fitting into the stereotypical dominant role (as stated). I value sensitivity as well, but I just know if I was to be with someone who was my emotional equal...we'd be arguing and bickering all the time :P

Oh there are times when I snap and can't stand anyone and everyone.

Hiratsuka

1st July 2010, 21:36

Foldered

1st July 2010, 22:07

I don't really think it matters what one decides to label oneself, anyway. It all comes back to what someone believes.
Of course, but when people demonize labels and movements without understanding them (or even trying to), that doesn't help either.

When I tell people I'm feminist, I don't want them to inadvertently and unfoundedly assume that I am either a bourgeois white woman or that I strongly sympathize with bourgeois white women.
Just like when I tell people I'm an anarchist, I don't want them to think I'm some pyro who simply hates authority.

*shrug*

GreenCommunism

2nd July 2010, 12:50

So the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of my ten years experience as a teacher, reinforced by the ‘anecdotal evidence’ of friends and colleagues, which all point to adolescent boys tending toward attention-seeking behaviour, disruption of the learning environment and often blatant hostility toward female teachers needs to be statistically verified for you to accept it?

I have ‘research’ to back me up, but I don’t bother slinging it around — ‘research’ in matters sociological can be skewed by a myriad of factors, not least by the tendency of researchers to choose their target groups, frame their questions and interpret the responses they get so that their original assumptions are confirmed.

Moreover the same researchers can produce different results at different times — witness the ever-shifting debate between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture.’ Or the same research can be ‘spun’ to produce different results — the AAUW (American Association of University Women) reports that argued that girls are better off in single-gender schools were spun in press releases to read the opposite. This merely reflects the fact that ‘research’ is usually tailored to larger socio-economic currents.

But here are some studies you may want to read — Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls (ed Susan Morse); Educating Girls — Practice and Research (GC Leder and SN Sampson, eds); A Critical Look at Same Sex Schools for Girl;, BettyWhite; Failing at Fairness, Sadker & Sadker; Building Self: Adolescent Girls and Self-Esteem, Sundra Flansburg 1993; Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) Report into Senior Secondary Achievement in Member Schools of the Alliance of Girls’ Schools Australasia; Boys and Girls Perform Better in Same Sex Schools, K Rowe (head of ACER at the time he gave this address);Gender differences in mathematics - attitudes of secondary school students (Steinbeck & Gwizdala, 1995 in School Science and Mathematics 95); Underestimating youth’s commitment to schools and society: Toward a more differentiated view (Good, Nichols & Sabers, 1999 in Social Psychology of Education An International Journal 3);Single-sex schooling and educational effectiveness: A research overview, (Moore, Piper & Schaefer, 1993 in Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research, DK Hollinger (ed)); and, of course, the (US) NASSPE site.

If you really want to argue that “boys and girls have different styles of learning” — and there is a body of ‘research’ that supports this view — why not argue for single-gendered education?

Please don’t reply with the stock answer that co-education aids in ‘socialization’ or ‘teaching members of both genders to work together.’ Sure, socialization is necessary and wonderful, but if you claim to be a Marxist, then you will know that people are socialized in ways that benefit the ruling class — under capitalism conformity is enforced (usually in the Anglosphere dressed up as consensus), obedience to authority is enjoined, individual competiveness is enthroned as the ultimate virtue … and boys and girls are indoctrinated into patterns of aggressive and conciliatory behaviour respectively. If you are not a Marxist, you will doubtless regard the sometimes comical and sometimes tragic behaviour of adolescent males and adolescent females in mixed settings as ‘natural.’ Girls in capitalist society ‘learn’ to take the back seat in any situation where project ‘teams’ are of mixed genders, or risk the consequences.

Moreover, academic achievement is just as important as ‘socialization,’ and, as I have pointed out on several occasions, neither gender is reaching its full potential. There is also substantial research to show that boys alsobenefit from single-gendered education. I often wonder whether men who oppose single-gender education do so because they are comfortable with the current paradigm whereby they can dominate the schoolroom as they try to dominate other areas.

But I repeat what I said in my earlier post — “Note that I am not denying that most of these problems are exacerbated by capitalist social relations, and will be attenuated by capitalism’s overthrow — I am merely pointing out that, even after the Revolution, there will need to be protracted effort (‘a leap in social consciousness’) to ensure equal educational opportunities for both genders.”

the change happened because of the influx of woman entering education and the lack of infrastructure present, there was no studies showing it was positive or some project around it, feminism caused it to happen because woman were entering the schools massively. i think this point may be good, but i can't help thinking you are a female teacher that wants to teach only to females. btw you have the same position as a famous red-brown in france which defended iran an their sex segregated schools.

as for the rest of your post, i can't help but think it is clearly what we defined as feminist chauvinism, when it comes to violence i find it absolutly idiotic that no feminist ever come forward with studies that support their point of view without studying woman on men violence. most of those studies they cite only take man on woman violence as statistics.

Wouldn’t you call it a ‘sexist climate’ when women feel that they have to avoid going to certain places, wearing certain things, or acting in certain ways lest they ‘provoke’ an attack by men? Men not only use the act of rape to humiliate and destroy women, they also use the threat of rape to prevent us from participating fully in all aspects of life. Most of us experience this threatened feeling at random during our lives — it doesn’t take being in the USSR in 1941, or in Bosnia or South-Central Africa; sometimes a visit to a pub, or a ‘friend’s’ BBQ can be threatening enough, and attacks can occur because one is working late, or wearing a short skirt or ‘revealing’ blouse, or “sending out signals,” or… — and it is this very randomness (you never know when you’re going to be at risk), that justifies the feminist claim that women live under the threat of rape every day of their lives. Most of us develop a sixth sense about such situations/people and exercise care, but we shouldn’t have to modify our behaviour unreasonably (“However we dress, wherever we go/’Yes’ means ‘yes’ and ‘no’ means ‘no’!”).

[And before you start, I know that men are raped too, for exactly the same reasons — power, control, and the desire to humiliate and destroy. And, yes, it is harder for the victims of such rapes to come forward — although it most definitely shouldn’t be.]

Oh, and I suppose that when African-American Stokely Carmichael was asked what position women should play in the civil-rights movement of the 1960s and replied ‘prone,’ he was not creating a ‘sexist climate’? (I’ll be generous and credit the man with actually knowing the difference between ‘prone – on one’s face’ and ‘supine – on one’s back.’ He may then simply have been describing his preferred method, as a self-proclaimed ‘top dog,’ of ‘taking’ ‘his’ ‘*****es’).

When a substantial proportion of men (hopefully outside of RevLeft) still believe that coercing a woman into having sex is not ‘violence,’ and a smaller, though still not inconsiderable, number believe that women actually enjoy rape, we definitely have a ‘sexist climate,’ Comrade.

this is fucking insane, what is a substantial proportion of men who believe that coercing a woman into sex is not violence. do you mean 0.1% of the population? because that's the statistics in quebec of people who have been sex offenders according to the law. as for the woman enjoying rape, i think most people saying that are talking about rough sex, which woman may or may not enjoy, and there are actual woman who say they have this kind of fetish since the rapist is probably a powerful figure ( albeit non-traditional gender roles means she can have a fetish for weak or submissive man just as well) this sort of fetish can be satisfied with roleplay or bsdm.

oh and on another note, some woman do have sexual pleasure during rape, it doesn't make the experience less traumatizing, it actually makes it worse as they feel even more guilt. i have a hard time explaining this but please don't say i am a rape apologist.

Invincible Summer

2nd July 2010, 21:12

It is kind of authoritarian to tell couples that they can't fit certain molds. However a couple wants to be, I have no objection as long as it's consentual.

The thing is, how can one tell if something is actually consensual or if the consent is socially constructed? In other words, what if a woman thinks she is consenting but is really just acting in accordance to internalized patriarchy or something?

I suppose if society gets to the point where gender roles are commonly seen as arbitrary and a thing of the past, then it'd be more clear.

manic expression

2nd July 2010, 22:32

The thing is, how can one tell if something is actually consensual or if the consent is socially constructed? In other words, what if a woman thinks she is consenting but is really just acting in accordance to internalized patriarchy or something?
I've never gotten this argument. Just about all social interactions are socially constructed (or socially interpreted), but if a woman wants to have sex with a man, how is that out of her control? It's like saying women are incapable of making rational decisions when it comes to their bodies...and that logic leads nowhere good.

Plus, it would mean that men are consenting in accordance to the same internalized patriarchy, and would be unable to give valid consent either.

Hiratsuka

2nd July 2010, 23:56

The thing is, how can one tell if something is actually consensual or if the consent is socially constructed? In other words, what if a woman thinks she is consenting but is really just acting in accordance to internalized patriarchy or something?

I suppose if society gets to the point where gender roles are commonly seen as arbitrary and a thing of the past, then it'd be more clear.

True, but it's generally dangerous to make such a presumption and then show negativity towards these women. Smacks of elitism, almost.

RaÃºl Duke

5th July 2010, 21:36

Thank you all, particularly Hiratsuka (and Foldered's counter-reply) and especially manic expression, for your insightful responses.

Frank Zapatista

11th July 2010, 15:26

This is my first post on RevLeft in quite a while, I had been busy with academics but now that its the summer you'll be seeing a lot more of me :P
Anyways, I see this thread is still going strong, I thought I would come and say, I'm no longer opposed to Feminism, It's been quite a while since my original post and I would be proud to call myself a Feminist at this point. I was unfamiliar with the topic at the time of posting and have done a lot of self-educating since I was last here.

#FF0000

11th July 2010, 21:21

Crimson Commissar

11th July 2010, 23:21

Franz Fanonipants

11th July 2010, 23:43

lol as hell

leftace53

12th July 2010, 00:03

Jazzratt

12th July 2010, 00:52

Invincible Summer

12th July 2010, 00:55

Honestly, I find it ridiculous that we leftists can show support for a thing such as feminism. All it does is divide the working class and create further inequality. Countering discrimination with more discrimination is NEVER a good thing. We should be promoting TRUE gender equality, not this feminist "MEN ARE EVIL WOMEN ARE GOOD HURF DURF" bullshit.

"Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It does not privilege women over men."

"Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." -- bell hooks

Crimson Commissar

12th July 2010, 07:12

"Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression. Its aim is not to benefit solely any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women. It does not privilege women over men."

"Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." -- bell hooks
The actions of many feminists say otherwise.

Blackscare

12th July 2010, 07:34

The actions of many feminists say otherwise.

There are looneys of every persuasion, which is why when you critique a huge movement such as feminism you have to look at the mainstream and examine it's core principles. If you did that, rather than take a vague emotional impression of what feminism is fostered by mainstream culture as fact, you may very well have a different opinion. Look into the subject a bit, or maybe read this thread that's 10 pages long. Or maybe stop trolling. I don't know.

I don't understand why someone would make a post in a thread, 10 pages in, that basically restates the original post, bringing everything back to square one and failing to address any of the points made. Except to troll. Unless you're like really inattentive and didn't notice those other 9 pages. In that case, I can help.

They're that way
<<<<<<<<

Frank Zapatista

12th July 2010, 08:34

Honestly, I find it ridiculous that we leftists can show support for a thing such as feminism. All it does is divide the working class and create further inequality. Countering discrimination with more discrimination is NEVER a good thing. We should be promoting TRUE gender equality, not this feminist "MEN ARE EVIL WOMEN ARE GOOD HURF DURF" bullshit.
Sexism against men is not the point of Feminism at all, Feminism is about uplifting women and bringing equality to the working class by abolishing sexist oppression. I recommend you read through the thread, perhaps you'll learn some things and look at things a little differently.

Crimson Commissar

12th July 2010, 16:42

Sexism against men is not the point of Feminism at all, Feminism is about uplifting women and bringing equality to the working class by abolishing sexist oppression. I recommend you read through the thread, perhaps you'll learn some things and look at things a little differently.
But the point is that we shouldn't be uplifting women to the point where they are considered BETTER than men. Men and women should be equal, endorsing female dominance over men isn't going to solve anything, we won't end sexism at all. Why can't we just have an equal society, why do women have to "get revenge" on men through feminist sexism? Men aren't evil, and women aren't completely perfect. Men are not trying to turn women into sexual objects, and we're not trying to oppress them. I should have the same rights as any woman, and any woman should have the same rights as me. We shouldn't be praising women by treating them as if they are "the poor, oppressed minority", and we definitely shouldn't be denouncing all men as "the evil, perverted oppressors".

Jazzratt

12th July 2010, 16:54

But the point is that we shouldn't be uplifting women to the point where they are considered BETTER than men. No one is suggesting anything else numbnuts.

Men and women should be equal, endorsing female dominance over men isn't going to solve anything, we won't end sexism at all. Why can't we just have an equal society, why do women have to "get revenge" on men through feminist sexism? This is why no one thinks you've read the thread or anything to do with feminism in your life. No one, literally no one has proposed that there be some kind of vegence on men. There are zero people who advocate the poistion you're arguing against. The fact that you believe there are people who do is quite depressing really. No one should be that stupid and live an unsupervised life.

Men aren't evil, and women aren't completely perfect. Men are not trying to turn women into sexual objects, and we're not trying to oppress them. I should have the same rights as any woman, and any woman should have the same rights as me. We shouldn't be praising women by treating them as if they are "the poor, oppressed minority", and we definitely shouldn't be denouncing all men as "the evil, perverted oppressors". Oh god. It's like talking to someone who has a swarm of flies where their brain should be. As I pointed out no one takes the position that men are evil and women are perfect. What is being said, and what you've been making a hilariously bad attempt to understand, is that men quite often occupy a position in society that means they have de facto power over women and of course other advantages. This isn't always deliberate on the part of the man, and it's not a claim that I'm an evil oppressor because I've got a dick but it's a claim that patriarchal standards still exist in society. Hell it manifests really well in your post where you go mental at the temerity of women to demand the same treatment as men because you see them asking for the same advantages that men have always enjoyed as a step too far.

Blackscare

13th July 2010, 07:11

It always astound me when users like Draconid just take a made up position nobody really stands for, and spend their time arguing against it. Draconid all you're doing is showing that you have no fucking clue about feminism or what it stands for.