Women in the image of men...

[R_P_A_S]

This might not be a Philosophy discussion so forgive me. But I wanted to ask you guys about your opinion on women, their image, the accessories, the apparel and all the things they use and do to "look pretty".

I have one question why do most women in western culture or influence feel the need to wear make up? fake eye lashes, fake nails, make them sels appear taller with heels.. hair extensions, dying their hair, mascara, etc. etc. etc.

It seems that the typical woman has to do more and add more to her look in order to "look good" as opposed to men. I mean I go as far as maybe putting a lil gel in my hair and shaving a bit...

I also have a feeling that MEN invented all this things.. the fake eye lashes, heels, bras, make up, fake nails and implants.. etc etc etc....

[Dean]

Men may not have invented these things, but they invented the system of patriarchy which commodifies human female sexuality more distinctly, and with a much more consumer-oriented character than the similar commodification of male sexuality. That is inevitably to blame for the increased demands placed on women to sell their image and labor in terms of sexual appeal.

Also, Moved to Discrimination. 03-20-10 Dean

[R_P_A_S]

Men may not have invented these things, but they invented the system of patriarchy which commodifies human female sexuality more distinctly, and with a much more consumer-oriented character than the similar commodification of male sexuality. That is inevitably to blame for the increased demands placed on women to sell their image and labor in terms of sexual appeal.

Also, Moved to Discrimination. 03-20-10 Dean

thanks for moving it.

[anticap]

Women are inundated from childhood with messages that they are flawed (men too, but in different ways, and with different manifestations). This is necessary in order to convince them to buy products that will allegedly fix their alleged flaws.

From a purely aesthetic perspective, I've yet to see a woman out of her makeup who I didn't find more attractive. The typical female makeup job looks like a clown mask to me.

[Le Libérer]

The fashion industry was indeed created by men. In the beginning men created the designs and women modeled them.

Though it is true, women dress for other women more than men. We are conditioned to compete through our looks more so then intellect. Its starting to change a little, but basically we have to go through a long rigamaro just to leave the house.

I've always been told by men I look better without makeup, women on the other hand, say the opposite.

[Physicist]

Bear in mind cosmetics went through a period of feminization after centuries of use by both genders. The compulsion to feel as if you appear attractive to potential mates (as well as company) is an extension of biology, not sexism. Patriarchy later on strong-armed certain beautification methods into the feminine sphere, but features like high heels were once commonly worn by men. I say this because the trend towards remedying these differences of exhibition has evidently been to reopen markets for men that have been closed off for hundreds of years. We see this now with products like "male foundation," colognes, hair spray, and so on. Bras and breast implants are slightly modified examples since they're sex-specific, but we now see the reverse order of trying to perfect our sexuality: penis enhancement.

I believe this trend needs to simply continue. The sentiment that all modifications need to be abolished just strikes me as unrealistic and slightly primitivist.

Personally, I think a slight addition of makeup can enhance the visual appeal of almost anyone - male or female.

[anticap]

There's nothing "primitivist" about rejecting the notion that I ought to douse myself with male body-spray if I want to get some action.

[Physicist]

Deodorant is empowerment. Letting bacteria stink up your underarms will turn off everyone who is not immune to the smell. Our sweat retains pheromones, but those critters do not. Of course it also depends on your body type. People with very white skin who trace their heritage back to Europe sweat a lot. People with very white skin who can trace their origins back to Asia, on the other hand, typically have less apocrine glands. That's why some medical professionals in Korea have "solved" the problem by cutting off skin, whereas Caucasians (and Africans) are more accustomed to the idea that you need to spice up your BO.

[¿Que?]

If you are really interested in this, there is this essay from the 1800's by Harriet Martineau called "Dress and its Victims". It argues that a lot of women's fashion is actually detrimental to their health. At the time, make up was actually toxic and high heels to this day have been shown to be bad for the back.

I couldn't find it online, or else I'd post a link. Don't quiz me on it, though, cuz it's been a while since I read it. But if anyone wants to discuss it, I'm not opposed to giving it another read.

[Le Libérer]

If you are really interested in this, there is this essay from the 1800's by Harriet Martineau called "Dress and its Victims". It argues that a lot of women's fashion is actually detrimental to their health. At the time, make up was actually toxic and high heels to this day have been shown to be bad for the back.


Not only that, but in the Victorian era, sometimes they would break their lower ribs to make their waist line very small along with excruiating corsets.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22419/22419-h/images/fig412b.png

[Physicist]

If you are really interested in this, there is this essay from the 1800's by Harriet Martineau called "Dress and its Victims". It argues that a lot of women's fashion is actually detrimental to their health. At the time, make up was actually toxic and high heels to this day have been shown to be bad for the back.

I couldn't find it online, or else I'd post a link. Don't quiz me on it, though, cuz it's been a while since I read it. But if anyone wants to discuss it, I'm not opposed to giving it another read.

That's very interesting.

Historically high heels have either been associated along gender or class lines. Nowadays I still don't see too many men wear them except for cowboy boots, but at the same time a lot of men aren't particularly impressed by them either. It seems to apply to ***** X's statement about, "women dress for other women more than men."

I don't see heels disappearing entirely, but those [i]really elongated examples just make everyone around go "ouch."

[¿Que?]

Although, having worked at a dry cleaners, I have to say womens' clothes are much more interesting than mens'. Men's fashion basically boils down to pants, shirt and jacket/sports coat. Women on the other hand have dresses, blouses, along with pants, shirts and jackets.

It was funny because sometimes it was hard to tell what exactly you were looking at in terms of clothing, without someone actually wearing it.

[Sam Da Communist]

I see the aesthetic things out to prettyfy people as a Cultural thing, captialist cultural thing. Capitalism and all its sexism are embedded into culture, women today follow capitalist culture in large numbers.

Regarding accessories it is Materialism, wealth symbolism.

Ive realised a lot of socialist and anarchost women with underarm hair. hairless females, Perhaps it's ageist pedophile mentality enforced by captialist prettyism?

Large breasts are actually class related i read. Large breasts mean a poor peasant/maid background that feeds milk to the rich babies (wet nurse), past bourgois culture in paintings represent rich breastless females. Large breast fancying is kind of proletarian! But today it is sexist, i remember christian aguilerra saying something like "god bless for having humble breasts not mountains" or something like that.

Dont for get that accessories and other apparal things can be a form of self expression, art. Proletarian fashion i am for! eg, facial hair, body hair, rags, etc. Hugo chavez loves military clothes, so does fidel castro! fidel wears a lot of track suits made my addidas strangely. Stalin and mao with thier (military or pheasant) coats?

A lot of anarchists are influenced by punk rock ghost fashion i see, kind of captialist or anti-capitalist culture that! punk rockers wear masscara and crazy haircuts, prehaps it's battle clothes, and battle makeup, and anarchist punk symbolism. I said it was ghost fashion, and they are at times scary looking to admit, and gloomy and depressed, and angry, and lonely looking. Poor souls, poor proletariats.

[Meridian]

I remember hearing a woman describing how she felt it sexist that men, at fancy parties or gatherings, etc., are expected only to wear a sort of uniform, that is black and white or black and some other color tuxedo. They don't need to make any heavy choices regarding how they are to appear. Women, on the other hand, have the burden of choosing what they feel look the prettiest, and have to struggle with a choice here.

Here I thought to myself that the same idea could represent a sexism against men, who as mentioned are to appear like they are wearing uniforms. Though both seems to me like bourgeoisie notions of "sexism".

[Dr Mindbender]

^

Well, not to make light of the subject but speaking as someone with gender ambiguity issues i for one hate the way its impossible for men to wear attypical female attire in public in anything other than the most progressive of societies without being thought a pervert or social deviant.

Perhaps if this stigma was removed it would go some way to spreading the burden?

[Meridian]

^

Well, not to make light of the subject but speaking as someone with gender ambiguity issues i for one hate the way its impossible for men to wear attypical female attire in public in anything other than the most progressive of societies without being thought a pervert or social deviant.

Perhaps if this stigma was removed it would go some way to spreading the burden?
You don't seem to be making light of the subject at all.

I agree that what you describe is negative. However, I wonder how it would be possible to have this stigma removed. I don't think it's right to shove a notion of 'forced equality' down over people's heads. Though, on the other hand, you could say that 'forced equality' is exactly what people experience today with many people being born into certain roles that they don't want. They are forced to be equal to the role determined by biological differences. I would really like to see the forceful aspect of this wither away.

[TheUnknownEntity]

Don't forget that in Victorian times they also used lead based cosmetics and Deadly Nightshade as mascara/eyeliner... now that's insane-the use of cosmetics in that era resulted in lots of unnecessary suffering/health problems/deaths.

No matter how tempting for anti-capitalists like us, though, DO NOT buy counterfeit cosmetics/perfumes/anything similar. They are usually toxic, contain human urine, and have resulted in many deaths and blindness.

[Psy]

You don't seem to be making light of the subject at all.

I agree that what you describe is negative. However, I wonder how it would be possible to have this stigma removed. I don't think it's right to shove a notion of 'forced equality' down over people's heads. Though, on the other hand, you could say that 'forced equality' is exactly what people experience today with many people being born into certain roles that they don't want. They are forced to be equal to the role determined by biological differences. I would really like to see the forceful aspect of this wither away.

Well a industrial proletariat revolution would probably make the image of industrial workers the default for both genders at least for a while since they would be the heroes of the new society thus industrial workers would become a idol within a communist society for as long as the labor uprisings that gave birth to society is part of popular culture being as much of a role model to girls as to boys in a communist society in my option.

[Meridian]

Well a industrial proletariat revolution would probably make the image of industrial workers the default for both genders at least for a while since they would be the heroes of the new society thus industrial workers would become a idol within a communist society for as long as the labor uprisings that gave birth to society is part of popular culture being as much of a role model to girls as to boys in a communist society in my option.
If we are talking about a revolution in commercialized, globalized countries like in the 'west', I think that prediction is largely outmoded. To be sure, hard working people will be considered heroes, but I think it is narrow minded to consider the industrial worker the only 'idols'. I think we need to adapt a broader view at who and what constitutes the 'working class' in this day and age. In many countries it is fairly obvious that industrial workers aren't the only ones for whom revolution is actually in their interest (whether they know it or not).

This is off-topic here, though.

[Psy]

If we are talking about a revolution in commercialized, globalized countries like in the 'west', I think that prediction is largely outmoded. To be sure, hard working people will be considered heroes, but I think it is narrow minded to consider the industrial worker the only 'idols'. I think we need to adapt a broader view at who and what constitutes the 'working class' in this day and age. In many countries it is fairly obvious that industrial workers aren't the only ones for whom revolution is actually in their interest (whether they know it or not).

This is off-topic here, though.

There is no such thing as a post industrial society thus a commercialized country is a industrialized country and industrial workers would be the vanguard in industrialized countries like in the west due to shear size of the means of production they work at.

[Le Libérer]

Regarding accessories it is Materialism, wealth symbolism. Agreed.



Large breasts are actually class related i read. Large breasts mean a poor peasant/maid background that feeds milk to the rich babies (wet nurse), past bourgois culture in paintings represent rich breastless females. Large breast fancying is kind of proletarian! But today it is sexist, i remember christian aguilerra saying something like "god bless for having humble breasts not mountains" or something like that. Except you will rarely find a natural set of boobs in Hollywood, they are perked up, lifted, or enlarged. I cant imagine having my nipples removed and placed higher to appear to sit on top of the breast, just to appear youthful. Theres something disgusting about mutilating ones body in that manner just to feel attractive sexually.

[punisa]

it is interesting, as some of you already mentioned, majority of men will want a woman with little or no make-up at all.
To consider men as root of all evil is infantile conclusion.

Speaking of fashion... I personally find "working class" girls very attractive. If I see a girl wearing hammer n sickle on her shirt... :wub::wub::wub::wub:

[Psy]

Speaking of fashion... I personally find "working class" girls very attractive. If I see a girl wearing hammer n sickle on her shirt... :wub::wub::wub::wub:

I agree.

http://englishrussia.com/images/soviet_b&w/105.jpg

[cska]

This might not be a Philosophy discussion so forgive me. But I wanted to ask you guys about your opinion on women, their image, the accessories, the apparel and all the things they use and do to "look pretty".

I have one question why do most women in western culture or influence feel the need to wear make up? fake eye lashes, fake nails, make them sels appear taller with heels.. hair extensions, dying their hair, mascara, etc. etc. etc.

It seems that the typical woman has to do more and add more to her look in order to "look good" as opposed to men. I mean I go as far as maybe putting a lil gel in my hair and shaving a bit...

I also have a feeling that MEN invented all this things.. the fake eye lashes, heels, bras, make up, fake nails and implants.. etc etc etc....

Don't ask me. I think it makes women look ugly...

[Salabra]

This might not be a Philosophy discussion so forgive me. But I wanted to ask you guys about your opinion on women, their image, the accessories, the apparel and all the things they use and do to "look pretty."

Some of us aren’t ‘guys,’ so you’ve come to the right place. I wouldn’t necessarily listen to me, if I were you, though — I probably have heretical views on these topics.

One thing I find particularly interesting is how some currents of ‘left-wing’ thought promulgate an orthodoxy not only in relation to, e.g., socialist economic policy or the ‘proper’ way to view the USSR, but also about such minutiae as dress, appearance and particular types of ‘acceptable’ behaviour. While I am quite happy with the view that “the personal is political,” and that modes of thought and behaviours should be examined through socialist lenses, I refuse to endorse a brand of ‘socialism’ that attempts to dictate every aspect of human existence.

Any attempt to pontificate on dress or the ‘right’ bodily attributes belongs on ‘Stormfront’ or in the perfervid imaginations of god-botherers of various affiliations.


Though it is true, women dress for other women more than men.

True. *I* also dress for myself — “what I’m comfortable in,” as well as “what I think looks good on me,” as well as “what I’m expected to wear.”

Where their life circumstances allow it, women, like men, dress in clothes that are functional (appropriate to the role they are playing at that specific point in time) and comfortable (psychologically as well as physically). Most of us — again just like men — also like wearing clothes that make us feel good about ourselves. The proportion of consideration we give to each of these three factors will vary from individual to individual and occasion to occasion — and sometimes on both axes (and several others) simultaneously.

I teach — in front of my students, I wear skirts, blouses and (when necessary) jackets. The materials will vary from summer to winter, but my skirts are usually below-the-knee. Yes, this is what I am expected to wear, but I also find such garb comfortable — and I like the way I look in it. By the same token, walking in the park in winter would see me in jeans, fur cap and a big thick coat— functional, comfy and good-looking for that situation.

I also wear heels and make-up on occasion — because I like wearing heels and make-up (though, given my health issues, I’m not always able to do so nowadays).


We see this now with products like "male foundation," colognes, hair spray, and so on. Bras and breast implants are slightly modified examples since they're sex-specific, but we now see the reverse order of trying to perfect our sexuality: penis enhancement

“Ostentatious display” by men was common in many societies until recently — although it was usually confined to the upper classes.

Its current incarnation is less about ‘democratization’ and more about ‘commodification,’ which capitalism extends even to the body.

A gay friend of mine once claimed that he could make a fortune selling “Sure-fire Penis Enlargement Kits” — a small comb and a pair of nail scissors. His reasoning was that all a man needed to do was trim his pubic hair and his penis would look larger!


…The sentiment that all modifications need to be abolished just strikes me as unrealistic and slightly primitivist..

Yes, as does the “barracks socialism” of everyone dressing in black pyjamas (or equivalent).


I see the aesthetic things out to prettyfy people as a Cultural thing, captialist cultural thing. Capitalism and all its sexism are embedded into culture, women today follow capitalist culture in large numbers.

Some of us actually enjoy “tarting ourselves up.” It doesn’t make our commitment to revolutionary politics any weaker — though I’ll not be wearing my stilettos as I race up the steps of the Winter Palace, thank you very much, Comrade!


Ive realised a lot of socialist and anarchost women with underarm hair. hairless females, Perhaps it's ageist pedophile mentality enforced by captialist prettyism?

I have no body hair, except on my head. I most stridently object to the moralistic assumption that I have a “paedophile mentality”— I simply prefer it. My partner hails from a culture that dispenses with body hair for “hygienic reasons.” Tough!


Large breasts are actually class related i read. Large breasts mean a poor peasant/maid background that feeds milk to the rich babies (wet nurse), past bourgois culture in paintings represent rich breastless females. Large breast fancying is kind of proletarian! But today it is sexist, i remember christian aguilerra saying something like "god bless for having humble breasts not mountains" or something like that.

As a gay woman, I’ve always been mystified by the popularity in the Anglosphere of male ‘icons’ with five-o-clock-shadow/designer-stubble on their faces. Such a phenomenon is often called “Bad Boy Syndrome” — the desire of ‘good’ girls/women to “flirt with danger” before starting up/returning to a ‘safe,’ ‘normal’ life — but I prefer to call it “Lady Chatterley Syndrome,” and characterize it as a belief on the part of bourgeois (and aspirational) women that “the lower orders” are “closer to nature,” and therefore ‘better’ at sex, or can give them more satisfaction than the ‘effete’ men of their own class.

This also taps into the whole “women-like-it-rough” dynamic, which could lead us from chick-flicks through bodice-ripping Mills & Boon romances to John Norman’s Gor as well as into discussion about sexual seduction, coercion and rape — but that’s way off-topic!


Dont for get that accessories and other apparal things can be a form of self expression, art. Proletarian fashion i am for! eg, facial hair, body hair, rags, etc. Hugo chavez loves military clothes, so does fidel castro! fidel wears a lot of track suits made my addidas strangely. Stalin and mao with thier (military or pheasant) coats?

Torn and raggedy clothes are not proletarian ‘fashion.’ In the ‘West’ they’re the trendy statement of spoiled middle-class kids playing at being ‘proletarians’. Proletarians (and the genuinely disadvantaged like the homeless, addicts and alcoholics) may have to wear rags — what they would like to wear are garments that are reasonable-looking, appropriate to their purpose, of good quality and reasonably inexpensive. Even if proletarians wear hand-me-downs (as many did in the ‘Eastern Bloc’), they have enough self-esteem to keep them clean and in good repair.


…A lot of anarchists are influenced by punk rock ghost fashion i see, kind of captialist or anti-capitalist culture that! punk rockers wear masscara and crazy haircuts, prehaps it's battle clothes, and battle makeup, and anarchist punk symbolism. I said it was ghost fashion, and they are at times scary looking to admit, and gloomy and depressed, and angry, and lonely looking. Poor souls, poor proletariats.

See previous comment. These are the costumes of alienation.


Well, not to make light of the subject but speaking as someone with gender ambiguity issues i for one hate the way its impossible for men to wear typical female attire in public in anything other than the most progressive of societies without being thought a pervert or social deviant.

Perhaps if this stigma was removed it would go some way to spreading the burden?

Agreed — and that includes makeup too if you wish.


You don't seem to be making light of the subject at all.

I agree that what you describe is negative. However, I wonder how it would be possible to have this stigma removed. I don't think it's right to shove a notion of 'forced equality' down over people's heads. Though, on the other hand, you could say that 'forced equality' is exactly what people experience today with many people being born into certain roles that they don't want. They are forced to be equal to the role determined by biological differences. I would really like to see the forceful aspect of this wither away.

Well said — and see my earlier comment about “barracks socialism.”

‘Forcing’ everyone to wear grey suits or black pyjamas is a natural response when attempting to build socialism in a situation where the majority of people exist at an abysmally low stage of socio-economic development. Where the productive resources of a society are at a much higher level, such a step is retrograde — and surely the aim of socialism is to develop those resources to a level where, e.g., cheap clothing of good quality and in a variety of styles is available to everyone.


…There’s something disgusting about mutilating ones body in that manner just to feel attractive sexually.

True — the same can be said about mutilating another’s body to make her/him more attractive or ‘valuable’ sexually.

And the same can be said about forcing women to dress in black tents — or pretty headscarves — so that they won’t ‘tempt’ men.

[Jazzratt]

A lot of the grey overalls brigade should bear in mind that a lot of this sounds like re-treading old ground (http://www.revleft.com/vb/clothing-communist-society-t79602/index.html).

[RED DAVE]

‘Forcing’ everyone to wear grey suits or black pyjamas is a natural response when attempting to build socialism in a situation where the majority of people exist at an abysmally low stage of socio-economic development.You were doing well up to that point. This is pure bullshit. Those spectacles of thousands of people, presumably workers, dressed in their worker-bee outfits that we used to see coming out of China and we still see emanating from North Korea are disturbing and disgusting.

If I can't dance to it, wearing what the fuck I want, it ain't my revolution.

RED DAVE

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Causally rather than ethically speaking, I think it's not legitimate to claim men are entirely responsible for female beauty standards. I would argue that patriarchy has been a necessary but not sufficient condition for many aspects of femininity emerging. Rather, men got the ball rolling, but women had to pick it up and keep in on track. Yes, many of those women did that because of male pressures, but it's still true that women played an important causal role. This is important to recognize in order to ensure women realize their own power. Too often feminism tries to victimize women to such an extent that they feel powerless and are left merely berating modern society while confirming to standards because "one just can't reject them."

It's more complicated, obviously, but women have been placed into a position where much of their power results from sexuality and beauty. They have in turn developed a more complex system. Now I don't know if the homosexuals dominating fashion industries is true, but if it is, it's arguable how much "men" are responsible for fashion trends. After all, homosexuals are typically gendered as female.

I think men need the finger pointed at them in the history books of "who caused this mess," but I think women need it pointed at them in the "who's going to clean it up" category. Unlike many feminists and thinkers, I actually think men should support feminism and benefit from it. That said, I can't see the movement succeeding with strong women continuing to move it forward.

Personally, I don't know how much modification a women used when I see them, in many cases. However, the stereotypical models are only attractive in a certain sense. For the most part, I don't consider them even close to as attractive as the average women who'd be called beautiful. The same goes for celebrities.

Honestly, I don't think many of these conceptions of beauty are anything but socially constructed standards rather than ways of accentuating objectively beautiful aspects of femininity. To be honest, those obsessed with celebrity looks of either gender, on average, tend to be rather conformist and non-critical thinkers anyway.

[Salabra]

You were doing well up to that point. This is pure bullshit. Those spectacles of thousands of people, presumably workers, dressed in their worker-bee outfits that we used to see coming out of China and we still see emanating from North Korea are disturbing and disgusting.

If I can't dance to it, wearing what the fuck I want, it ain't my revolution.

RED DAVE

Most emphatically agreed — and if I had been able to add a Comment to my Thanks, I would not have needed to write this one!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

This might not be a Philosophy discussion so forgive me. But I wanted to ask you guys about your opinion on women, their image, the accessories, the apparel and all the things they use and do to "look pretty".

I have one question why do most women in western culture or influence feel the need to wear make up? fake eye lashes, fake nails, make them sels appear taller with heels.. hair extensions, dying their hair, mascara, etc. etc. etc.

It seems that the typical woman has to do more and add more to her look in order to "look good" as opposed to men. I mean I go as far as maybe putting a lil gel in my hair and shaving a bit...

I also have a feeling that MEN invented all this things.. the fake eye lashes, heels, bras, make up, fake nails and implants.. etc etc etc....

I feel pretty in my make up. :-)

[leftace53]

I feel pretty in my make up. :-)

This.
The reason I feel pretty in it though is because whatever norms (social/aesthetic) tell me that an even skin tone, or exaggerated eyes, or plump lips are what constitute as pretty. If sneakers and sweatpants became pretty, I'd be all up in that fad.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

This.
The reason I feel pretty in it though is because whatever norms (social/aesthetic) tell me that an even skin tone, or exaggerated eyes, or plump lips are what constitute as pretty. If sneakers and sweatpants became pretty, I'd be all up in that fad.

I don't believe that anyone should be pressured one way or another. I just like it.

[bloodbeard]

Well I really appreciate the men who are saying they find women without makeup more attractive and all but high standards of beauty set for women does not limit itself to having to wear makeup, fake eyelashes, heels etc. A women who's fat and has a big nose (to give an example of some traits that our society deem unattractive) will still be fat and still have a big nose with or without using makeup. Vice versa, a woman with nice features and a slim figure will still be pretty, with or without makeup. And be considered sexually attractive in the eyes of most men, so nothing has changed. It still places women into a position where much of their power comes from "sexuality and beauty" irrespective of their mental capabilities and personality. A fat and unattractive wealthy man could still get away with not caring a damn about his outer appearance when trying to impress women to get into bed whereas a wealthy woman who's fat and unattractive will be expected to get it "fixed" with plastic surgeries and extreme dieting before she can confidently seduce men. The chance of the fat unattractive man finding a spouse who will actually love and respect him regardless of his outer appearance is much greater than his female counterpart who is just as unattractive. I do not know what is the solution to this inequality, but i suspect that there is to be more than one. The islamic solution is the veil so that man cannot judge woman by her looks in the work place or classroom etc but obviously this places too much responsibility on the woman alone, as men do not veil their faces as well. And I think marxists or leftists believe a classless society with equal wealth distribution would naturally bring balance to the genders as far as their chance of getting laid/finding a spouse, based on outer appearance, is concerned correct? Or would there be other solutions as well? In any case, in our current capitalist society, as one who considers herself feminist (not a female supremacist), sadly, I see no other solution than to increase the expectations of how men should look to higher degrees and to ask for more emphasis to be placed on THEIR facial features and physiques! I am not one to go for looks as much as for personality and intelligence when it comes to my choice of men but i think that is actually detrimental to the progression of female empowerment and the battle for being treated as equally as possible as men in society. This would not please men much, nor would it be "comfortable" for women who are used to liking men for their personalities but it must be done.




And the same can be said about forcing women to dress in black tents — or pretty headscarves — so that they won’t ‘tempt’ men.

Actually this is not entirely true. It isn't as much as so that they wouldn't "tempt" men, but more to do with not to be judged by their looks and to be taken seriously, kind oflike wearing a business suit. Islamic men(as well as women) are expected to lower the gaze to avoid temptation.

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard
their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is
well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.


FYI, I am not muslim but I like to learn about islam, just as much as I like to learn about leftist politics.

[Meridian]

It still places women into a position where much of their power comes from "sexuality and beauty" irrespective of their mental capabilities and personality. A fat and unattractive wealthy man could still get away with not caring a damn about his outer appearance when trying to impress women to get into bed whereas a wealthy woman who's fat and unattractive will be expected to get it "fixed" with plastic surgeries and extreme dieting before she can confidently seduce men.
You miss one crucial element, which is often missed. Namely, that when selecting partners, women tend to go for "secure", confident, etc., types (this is statistically speaking, of course not everyone does this). In other words, being "good looking" is not as an important factor for men as it is for women, true, but being financially secure, being assertive, not being shy, etc., are very important for men - because it is important for women looking for a "mate". That is equally unfair as female's situation of beauty pressure (which also does exist to some degree with men), because men are not able to choose those traits out of the blue (such as self-confidence, appearing secure, and let's not forget the economical/power aspect).


The chance of the fat unattractive man finding a spouse who will actually love and respect him regardless of his outer appearance is much greater than his female counterpart who is just as unattractive.
Perhaps, but not regardless of other things, such as those I listed above. Beauty is not the only factor. For women, men are not as interested in whether or not they have a confident or non-confident personality (again, talking by statistics here), or what their financial situation is.


I do not know what is the solution to this inequality, but i suspect that there is to be more than one.
What inequality?

Women, by their choice of partners, are perpetuating these statistics to the exact same degree as men.


In any case, in our current capitalist society, as one who considers herself feminist (not a female supremacist), sadly, I see no other solution than to increase the expectations of how men should look to higher degrees and to ask for more emphasis to be placed on THEIR facial features and physiques!Besides noting how ridiculous that sounds, and that I refuted the premise of this, above, I am kind of wondering how you plan to make this happen. How do you regulate peoples expectations?

Also, principally, I think it is wrong to enforce equality when that simply means more of something negative. That is why forced military service for women (as well as men) is a bad idea, for example, when what we want is no military service at all.

[Robocommie]

There's nothing "primitivist" about rejecting the notion that I ought to douse myself with male body-spray if I want to get some action.

Well, I mean, it couldn't hurt your chances with the ladies if you smell nice. And it's not like it takes a long time to go over yourself with a can of whatever.

[lombas]

I have one question why do most women in western culture or influence feel the need to wear make up? fake eye lashes, fake nails, make them sels appear taller with heels.. hair extensions, dying their hair, mascara, etc. etc. etc.

Because it generally makes a person feel better to put on nice clothes, to bathe, and to look good.


I also have a feeling that MEN invented all this things.. the fake eye lashes, heels, bras, make up, fake nails and implants.. etc etc etc....

Most of these things have been around for thousands of years, also in matriarchal societies.

[lombas]

You were doing well up to that point. This is pure bullshit. Those spectacles of thousands of people, presumably workers, dressed in their worker-bee outfits that we used to see coming out of China and we still see emanating from North Korea are disturbing and disgusting.

If I can't dance to it, wearing what the fuck I want, it ain't my revolution.

RED DAVE

Actually, North Korean women like to dress up and look good. They are quite sexy, as a matter of fact.

[Tablo]

Actually, North Korean women like to dress up and look good.
Maybe in Pyongyang, but most of the country isn't exactly in the same position.

[Foldered]

What's with all this BS about what people (mostly straight men, in this thread) find attractive? You think a woman shouldn't wear make-up because you find it more attractive and that she looks like a doll with make-up on is just as fucked up as thinking all women need to conform to some standard of beauty.
The problem is hegemony- the drive to feel "normal" that people in capitalist society have, which is quelled by (often gender segregated) consumerism and patriarchy, which suggests that women need to take on certain narrow roles in society and cannot step out of that.

Seriously, it urks me that this has been derailed into a "oh, i find the natural looking girl prettier so i can't comprehend why women want to wear make up" thread.

[gorillafuck]

Well I really appreciate the men who are saying they find women without makeup more attractive and all but high standards of beauty set for women does not limit itself to having to wear makeup, fake eyelashes, heels etc.
Why would you thank someone for their sexual preference?

Don't ask me. I think it makes women look ugly...
That doesn't make you any more or less progressive.

Women look much better in makeup in my opinion. Most people look better with a little bit of makeup. If I wasn't afraid of what people would think of me, I would wear a little bit of eyeliner (I'm male). Does anyone actually think that thinking makeup is attractive is sexist? If so, that's ridiculous.

[Salabra]

Actually this is not entirely true. It isn't as much as so that they wouldn't "tempt" men, but more to do with not to be judged by their looks and to be taken seriously, kind oflike wearing a business suit.

I’ve heard this sort of thing from time to time. How does it jibe with the putrescent ramblings of Australian muslim cleric ‘Sheikh’ Taj el-Din Hamid Hilaly that “unveiled women are like meat left out in the sun, uncovered, that any cat can eat”?


The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

/me snorts.

And, of course, they do!

*I* demand to be taken seriously by my demeanour, whether I’m dressed in a business suit or a bikini — I teach my students to do the same.

I honestly find offensive the assumption that a man cannot “take me seriously” if he can see that I am a woman. I imagine most men — as distinct from little boys who need Invisible Daddy to direct their every thought and action — would find such a slur on their own gender offensive as well.

[Foldered]

*I* demand to be taken seriously by my demeanour, whether I’m dressed in a business suit or a bikini — I teach my students to do the same.

Attention needs to be brought to how poignant this point is.

[Psy]

What's with all this BS about what people (mostly straight men, in this thread) find attractive? You think a woman shouldn't wear make-up because you find it more attractive and that she looks like a doll with make-up on is just as fucked up as thinking all women need to conform to some standard of beauty.

The problem is hegemony- the drive to feel "normal" that people in capitalist society have, which is quelled by (often gender segregated) consumerism and patriarchy, which suggests that women need to take on certain narrow roles in society and cannot step out of that.

Seriously, it urks me that this has been derailed into a "oh, i find the natural looking girl prettier so i can't comprehend why women want to wear make up" thread.

For me it that the current standard of beauty goes against the engineering principle that form should follow function meaning to follow the current standard beauty it lowers the utility of the worker to society due to making contradictory for the ideal industrial worker (male or female).

I mean can you image any super model in working in a steal mill, mine, construction crew or even farm work? The bourgeoisie image of beauty is just unworkable if you want women to be workers, women actually working would mean they would develop body mass and the more labor a women contributes to society the closer they would approach to the "tom boy" body type in the bourgeois ideal of female beauty.

Also do really want a society where women are treated significantly differently from men in the workplace?

[Foldered]

I mean can you image any super model in working in a steal mill, mine, construction crew or even farm work?
Define super model? No, I don't think someone who has the physique of a super model could do that work, but if you mean someone who enjoys looking pretty (as in, wears makeup, likes to dress up), then you are being judgmental. I know plenty of women (who also wear make up, dress up, etc) who work in construction and are damn good at their job.

The bourgeoisie image of beauty is just unworkable if you want women to be workers, women actually working would mean they would develop body mass and the more labor a women contributes to society the closer they would approach to the "tom boy" body type in the bourgeois ideal of female beauty.
Do you think the image should be changed then? Because the problem isn't simply that the image is wrong (frail and skinny being beautiful), but the idea that there exists an image that people think they need to conform to is the damaging one. That's the root of the problem, not that society right now has an "unworkable" image of beauty.
The problem with changing the image is that the entire system that is problematic (the system that enforces people to become "normalized," to feel that they must subscribe to what is hegemonic to be accepted), not with the image that the system is perpetuating.
A working class "image of beauty" (assumedly the opposite of the bourgeois one) is still an "image of beauty," regardless of how pretty you think is, and that is still, and would still be, a problem.
Don't tell people what's beautiful, and don't tell them they're not beautiful because they choose to wear makeup, simply because it's "bourgeois" (in a very limited understanding of the term, if you ask me).


Also do really want a society where women are treated significantly differently from men in the workplace?
No, obviously not- that's an incredibly inane rhetorical question to make to me- but everyone doesn't need to look the same so we "avoid" differential treatment.

[Psy]

Define super model? No, I don't think someone who has the physique of a super model could do that work, but if you mean someone who enjoys looking pretty (as in, wears makeup, likes to dress up), then you are being judgmental. I know plenty of women (who also wear make up, dress up, etc) who work in construction and are damn good at their job.

I meant physique but there are some social engineering issues with looking pretty. If having a dress and makeup makes female pretty what that makes females dressed for physical work?

For example lets say your on a passenger train and the train stops to pick up track crew on the side of the track (wearing denim jeans, plastic fiber safety vests, work gloves, safety boots and hard hats), now if there was women among the track crew would they unattractive? Should the female railway workers be at a disadvantage of hitting on the male passengers on the train just because they just came from work?



Do you think the image should be changed then? Because the problem isn't simply that the image is wrong (frail and skinny being beautiful), but the idea that there exists an image that people think they need to conform to is the damaging one. That's the root of the problem, not that society right now has an "unworkable" image of beauty.
The problem with changing the image is that the entire system that is problematic (the system that enforces people to become "normalized," to feel that they must subscribe to what is hegemonic to be accepted), not with the image that the system is perpetuating.
A working class "image of beauty" (assumedly the opposite of the bourgeois one) is still an "image of beauty," regardless of how pretty you think is, and that is still, and would still be, a problem.
Don't tell people what's beautiful, and don't tell them they're not beautiful because they choose to wear makeup, simply because it's "bourgeois" (in a very limited understanding of the term, if you ask me).

No, obviously not- that's an incredibly inane rhetorical question to make to me- but everyone doesn't need to look the same so we "avoid" differential treatment.
I never said everyone had to look the same, the problem is you are not addressing women competing for mates through consumption of products of society and what this means for a society that gives free access to said products of society. In a planned economy are we suppose to allow women have a ever escalating consumption of beauty products as they try have a endless beauty arms race?

[Foldered]

should the female railway workers be at a disadvantage of hitting on the male passengers on the train just because they just came from work?

In a planned economy are we suppose to allow women have a ever escalating consumption of beauty products as they try have a endless beauty arms race?
If these are the questions that you came up with after reading what I responded with, I'm not discussing this anymore.

[Psy]

If these are the questions that you came up with after reading what I responded with, I'm not discussing this anymore.
You seem to think women should continue looking at commodities for beauty and that we should never deal with the issue of commodity fetishism.

I would think in a communist society both men and women would have gotten past this and that men and women can interact without the crutch of beauty products.

[Foldered]

You seem to think women should continue looking at commodities for beauty and that we should never deal with the issue of commodity fetishism.
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that creating an image of a beautiful "working" woman is just as problematic as perpetuating the bourgeois ideals we have today. It's replacing one structure with another equally damaging one.


I would think in a communist society both men and women would have gotten past this and that men and women can interact without the crutch of beauty products.
Same, but you can't say that women, or men, who use beauty products are a huge problem where we should focus a lot of our attention.
My original point was against the notion that "I don't find women who use make up attractive because it's so bourgeois" as that's equally as objectifying as only liking women who fit some sort of beauty standard. I said it urked me that that's how the thread turned; you seemed to have created how I feel about the issue of commodity fetishism, etc., without me having ever suggested how I do.

[Psy]

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that creating an image of a beautiful "working" woman is just as problematic as perpetuating the bourgeois ideals we have today. It's replacing one structure with another equally damaging one.

It not as problematic. Women that match the physique of working woman would be more healthy, contribute more to society and better able to defend communism in the event of a military draft (especially since they would not be scared to get dirty). If men/women are going after that physique to attract mates it simply means we have more labor power (are they are physically stronger) and healthier workers in general.

As for clothing it means the production of more useful clothing that is more durable and easier to mass produce.

Lack of beauty products means less production that goes producing them meaning freeing up labor power that could be better used.



Same, but you can't say that women, or men, who use beauty products are a huge problem where we should focus a lot of our attention.
My original point was against the notion that "I don't find women who use make up attractive because it's so bourgeois" as that's equally as objectifying as only liking women who fit some sort of beauty standard. I said it urked me that that's how the thread turned; you seemed to have created how I feel about the issue of commodity fetishism, etc., without me having ever suggested how I do.
Women did not need makeup before capitalism to attract mates so why would they need it after capitalism?

For me it is not that I find women with makeup unattractive but that they are showing off their commodity fetishism and insecurity about their natural looks.

[Foldered]

For me it is not that I find women with makeup unattractive but that they are showing off their commodity fetishism and insecurity about their natural looks.
This is where the problem lies and where my original criticism came from; it doesn't matter what you find attractive in a women. Women do not exist to be attractive to you. The fact that this thread de-railed into this shows that there is a fundamental lack of respect at work.
Behind this post is inherent heterosexism as well as chavanism; this is what I am against, this is why I posted in this thread.
None of this is about "attracting mates" (which you assume to be men); it's about the assumption that women do what they do and wear what they wear to impress you (straight men). There is something very fucked up about that.

[Psy]

This is where the problem lies and where my original criticism came from; it doesn't matter what you find attractive in a women. Women do not exist to be attractive to you. The fact that this thread de-railed into this shows that there is a fundamental lack of respect at work.

True but as I pointed out there are social implications for what society views is attractive if there is social labor involved. If women require beauty products to meet that goal it is a production sink that sucks productive forces away from more valuable endeavors even workers having more leisure time.



Behind this post is inherent heterosexism as well as chavanism; this is what I am against, this is why I posted in this thread.
None of this is about "attracting mates" (which you assume to be men); it's about the assumption that women do what they do and wear what they wear to impress you (straight men). There is something very fucked up about that.
You do know women commodifying beauty to attract other women doesn't change anything, it is still a commodity fetishism and a drain on the productive forces of society.

[Hiratsuka]

This is where the problem lies and where my original criticism came from; it doesn't matter what you find attractive in a women. Women do not exist to be attractive to you. The fact that this thread de-railed into this shows that there is a fundamental lack of respect at work.
Behind this post is inherent heterosexism as well as chavanism; this is what I am against, this is why I posted in this thread.
None of this is about "attracting mates" (which you assume to be men); it's about the assumption that women do what they do and wear what they wear to impress you (straight men). There is something very fucked up about that.

This ubiquitous emotion called lust drives heterosexual women to dress to woo heterosexual men, and visa versa. It's not fucked up to recognize the presence of mate-selection through overt means. Both sexes and all orientations practice it, have practiced it, and will continue to practice it until we either transfuse our hormones with better regulating agencies or transcend into a higher state of nakedness.

The current standards of beauty in every country are well-regulated by prior prejudice, but there will always be standards a majority of men and women hold that categorize the opposite sex (or the same, depending on one's orientation) on simple characteristics. These standards may change with time, but mass culture binds each one of us like a plague. Obese wo/men are not likely to ever be viewed as attractive by most people.

[bloodbeard]

I’ve heard this sort of thing from time to time. How does it jibe with the putrescent ramblings of Australian muslim cleric ‘Sheikh’ Taj el-Din Hamid Hilaly that “unveiled women are like meat left out in the sun, uncovered, that any cat can eat”?

I have no idea who he is and what he say does not matter to me. In fact the argument can be made that the quran does not itself order the veiling of women, let alone make any such claim as what the person in your example said.





/me snorts.

And, of course, they do!

*I* demand to be taken seriously by my demeanour, whether I’m dressed in a business suit or a bikini — I teach my students to do the same.

I honestly find offensive the assumption that a man cannot “take me seriously” if he can see that I am a woman. I imagine most men — as distinct from little boys who need Invisible Daddy to direct their every thought and action — would find such a slur on their own gender offensive as well.

Can I ask, who has made this about YOU? Are you muslim? You do not need to abide by their law and way of life so I really don't know why it is making you upset. While you wish to be taken seriously however way you are dressed, bikini or business suit, why couldn't you respect the wish of muslim women, who wish to be taken seriously by dressing a certain way? Do you wish to impose your views on them? to what? liberate them i presume?

Previously you make the claim that they veil themselves so men would not be tempted, and I have explained to you that according to the quran, islam places that responsibility on the individual, man or woman, to take responsibility for themselves not be "tempted", to control themselves.

[bloodbeard]

You miss one crucial element, which is often missed. Namely, that when selecting partners, women tend to go for "secure", confident, etc., types (this is statistically speaking, of course not everyone does this). In other words, being "good looking" is not as an important factor for men as it is for women, true, but being financially secure, being assertive, not being shy, etc., are very important for men - because it is important for women looking for a "mate". That is equally unfair as female's situation of beauty pressure (which also does exist to some degree with men), because men are not able to choose those traits out of the blue (such as self-confidence, appearing secure, and let's not forget the economical/power aspect).

Uh well, if you take financial and security reasons out of the equation, of course more women would care about how their men look and would go for someone more pleasing to the eye when selecting a mate. The traits you described such as "being assertive, not being shy, confidence" these are things all people should learn to develop, not be only required for men. What is this, feminism 101? lol!!



Perhaps, but not regardless of other things, such as those I listed above. Beauty is not the only factor. For women, men are not as interested in whether or not they have a confident or non-confident personality (again, talking by statistics here), or what their financial situation is.


Women, by their choice of partners, are perpetuating these statistics to the exact same degree as men.

Besides noting how ridiculous that sounds, and that I refuted the premise of this, above, I am kind of wondering how you plan to make this happen. How do you regulate peoples expectations? The dynamic is changing as more women are earning money for themselves and the traditional roles of men/women relationships are less and less required. I'm in my early 20s and the men I know who aren't currently relying on their parents for support, say they don't expect to have housewife when they get married. As far as I can tell, men these days expect women to also contribute financially to the marriage/partnership/what have you and for the responsibilities of the household to be shared, which I think is fair and I am perfectly fine with it.


Also, principally, I think it is wrong to enforce equality when that simply means more of something negative. That is why forced military service for women (as well as men) is a bad idea, for example, when what we want is no military service at all. ???? In the case of forced military service, it is a governmental issue. It's completely different from men judging a woman by her looks, on how fu-kable and beautiful she looks, on her not being fat/ugly and having a great body etc. This is natural phenomenon, and if women are able to enjoy the same freedoms as men in life, they'd also naturally go for these things while choosing a mate.




edit* if anything, for men being "forced" to care about their appearance, such as how they dress, smell, style their hair, etc is an economically driven practice from capitalists, which you will inevitably have no choice but to conform to, trust me, this on top of being confident and nice and all that too. It will not come from us evil feminists. Not at all.

[Psy]

Can I ask, who has made this about YOU? Are you muslim? You do not need to abide by their law and way of life so I really don't know why it is making you upset. While you wish to be taken seriously however way you are dressed, bikini or business suit, why couldn't you respect the wish of muslim women, who wish to be taken seriously by dressing a certain way? Do you wish to impose your views on them? to what? liberate them i presume?

Because they are dressed in clothing engineered to hide the female form from raiders yet since mostly only Muslim women wear it now it no longer performs the task it was engineered for as if there was still raiders they could tell who was female and male by who was wearing a veil.

Also why would this utility be useful in a communist society? What function could hiding the female form possibility have in a communist society? How would hiding the female form bring us closer to a proletarian revolution or bring greater equality between the sexes?



Previously you make the claim that they veil themselves so men would not be tempted, and I have explained to you that according to the quran, islam places that responsibility on the individual, man or woman, to take responsibility for themselves not be "tempted", to control themselves.
And that changed the fact that the veil has no modern day utility because? How are women suppose to work with veils? Can you image anyone doing physical labor in a veil? Do you even know how many safety issues the veil causes for industrial workplaces?

[Foldered]

This ubiquitous emotion called lust drives heterosexual women to dress to woo heterosexual men, and visa versa. It's not fucked up to recognize the presence of mate-selection through overt means. Both sexes and all orientations practice it, have practiced it, and will continue to practice it until we either transfuse our hormones with better regulating agencies or transcend into a higher state of nakedness.
Of course, but to make assumptions that everyone is heterosexual, for one, which has been assumed by many in this thread, is offensive. And to assume that the only drive behind looking "pretty" (whatever that entails) is to impress men (think, do you dress for others or for yourself?) is also offensive, and narrow-minded.


The current standards of beauty in every country are well-regulated by prior prejudice, but there will always be standards a majority of men and women hold that categorize the opposite sex (or the same, depending on one's orientation) on simple characteristics. These standards may change with time, but mass culture binds each one of us like a plague. Obese wo/men are not likely to ever be viewed as attractive by most people.I agree; those standards are enforced by many capitalist culture industries and it's a problem. But that is unrelated to everything I have said thus far in this thread in that I never disagreed with it.

[Psy]

Of course, but to make assumptions that everyone is heterosexual, for one, which has been assumed by many in this thread, is offensive. And to assume that the only drive behind looking "pretty" (whatever that entails) is to impress men (think, do you dress for others or for yourself?) is also offensive, and narrow-minded.

I don't make that assumption, I make the assumption that sexual preference is irrelevant in regard to the commodification of beauty. Also the issue of beauty in industrial workplaces and how to allow beauty, functionality and safety to exist at the same time in a industrial society so we don't create alienation of the production process because men/women feel ugly in their industrial garbs.

[Foldered]

I don't make that assumption, I make the assumption that sexual preference is irrelevant in regard to the commodification of beauty. Also the issue of beauty in industrial workplaces and how to allow beauty, functionality and safety to exist at the same time in a industrial society so we don't create alienation of the production process because men/women feel ugly in their industrial garbs.
According to you, makeup is bad because you find it unattractive because it shows off commodity fetishism and insecurity.

How is that not a ridiculous stance to take? It is grounded on you finding commodity fetishism unattractive, not because of its actual damages.
How can you judge people that wear makeup; we live in a society where we are constantly (especially women!) bombarded with images of beauty that if you don't subscribe to those images then you are marginalized. To judge the people who feel it necessary to conform is equally as damaging as the system in place which makes people feel it necessary to conform to those ideals.

[Psy]

According to you, makeup is bad because you find it unattractive because it shows off commodity fetishism and insecurity.

How is that not a ridiculous stance to take? It is grounded on you finding commodity fetishism unattractive, not because of its actual damages.
How can you judge people that wear makeup; we live in a society where we are constantly (especially women!) bombarded with images of beauty that if you don't subscribe to those images then you are marginalized. To judge the people who feel it necessary to conform is equally as damaging as the system in place which makes people feel it necessary to conform to those ideals.
Yet industrial women can't wear makeup on the job due to practically yet that does not stop industrial men from hitting on them even though by bourgeoisie standards they are tom boys.

Thus makeup for proletarian women only shows off their drive to conform to the social demands bourgeoisie. I mean if proletarian women won't even question the bourgeoisie images of beauty that you agree they are bombarded with how the hell are they going to question the rest of capitalist propaganda that bombard the proletariat?

[Foldered]

Yet industrial women can't wear makeup on the job due to practically yet that does not stop industrial men from hitting on them even though by bourgeoisie standards they are tom boys.
Hypothetically speaking or do you have sources for this scenario?


Thus makeup for proletarian women only shows off their drive to conform to the social demands bourgeoisie. I mean if proletarian women won't even question the bourgeoisie images of beauty that you agree they are bombarded with how the hell are they going to question the rest of capitalist propaganda that bombard the proletariat?
That is seriously your logic?

[Psy]

Hypothetically speaking or do you have sources for this scenario?

How do you think the proletariat reproduces in regions where proletarian women are too poor to conform to bourgeois standards of beauty.

Why do you think "tom boys" are a fetish in bourgeoisie porn aimed a proletarian men?



That is seriously your logic?
Lets say a women rejects the bourgeoisie ideal of beauty what is the consequence other then being shunned by bourgeoisie society?

[Foldered]

How do you think the proletariat reproduces in regions where proletarian women are too poor to conform to bourgeois standards of beauty.
You have a narrow understanding of sexuality.



Lets say a women rejects the bourgeoisie ideal of beauty what is the consequence other then being shunned by bourgeoisie society?Precisely this. Bourgeois society happens to be synonymous with society, at least where I'm from, and being shunned is a very scary thing for a lot of people, and I don't think they can be blamed for it.

I'm done with this though, it's going nowhere. You have a boner for "working class" (so long as they look "working class") women because you have an industrial fetish and nothing I say or do is going to make this discussion go beyond that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Marxists do not dictate the ideals of beauty and sexuality, whether among men or women, gay or straight. But then it becomes a problem when people are forced to conform to a particular standard (e.g. the bourgeois normative) of beauty and sexuality. It then becomes a form of cultural oppression, which is then reactionary.

[Foldered]

Marxists do not dictate the ideals of beauty and sexuality, whether among men or women, gay or straight. But then it becomes a problem when people are forced to conform to a particular standard (e.g. the bourgeois normative) of beauty and sexuality. It then becomes a form of cultural oppression, which is then reactionary.
Would you not consider the "proletarian normative" a standard to conform to/ a form of cultural oppression?

This is essentially what I'm trying to argue. Replacing one ideal with another is still a problem, regardless of how much "better" (for industry, for whatever) it is.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not a dogmatic Marxist so I don't believe there is a single proletarian normative. I believe while the essential principles of Marxism are objectively correct, a lot of Marxist ideas actually move on with the times. Also, Marxism is primarily a system of political economy, and the best one there is at the moment, but it is not really a system of social science. Therefore, Marxists are not qualified anyway to dictate what "social norms" should be to people, and this would also violate the principles of proletarian democracy, which would imply cultural pluralism.

Having said this, it has to be said that the "proletarian norm" is still much better than the "bourgeois norm" and even more than than the "reductionist social darwinist norm". If I only have these 3 to choose from, I'd pick the first one on any day.

[Psy]

You have a narrow understanding of sexuality.

How so? If the bourgeoisie version of sexuality was how men viewed sexuality why is bourgeoisie in the porn industry not able to sell it exclusivity and have to also provide deviations to the bourgeoisie definition of sexuality and why has this been the largest growth sector for porn in the last few decades?



Precisely this. Bourgeois society happens to be synonymous with society, at least where I'm from, and being shunned is a very scary thing for a lot of people, and I don't think they can be blamed for it.

Bourgeois society is dominant but that does not mean the proletariat have no society of their own. Walk into a bar filled with proletarian workers and tell me this is part of bourgeoisie society, then well if that is the case why is so different then a fine wine bar filled with bourgeoisie?




I'm done with this though, it's going nowhere. You have a boner for "working class" (so long as they look "working class") women because you have an industrial fetish and nothing I say or do is going to make this discussion go beyond that.
It is not that the bourgeois image of beauty does not look working class it looks bourgeoisie due to the impractical nature of the look for doing labor and the high labor value the look involves. In my option it is comes down to fetishism of the bourgeoisie. It is no me having a industrial fetish of women (I just admit they still hold their sexuality) but I find this bourgeoisie fetishism something that would be unhealthy for people in a communist society.

[Foldered]

Having said this, it has to be said that the "proletarian norm" is still much better than the "bourgeois norm" and even more than than the "reductionist social darwinist norm". If I only have these 3 to choose from, I'd pick the first one on any day.
Or we could just move beyond the concept of "norms."

As for a "proletarian bar" and a "bourgeoisie fine wine bar": they are the same, they are establishments that exchange money for alcoholic beverages; they are establishments that have managers with workers under them; they are capitalist.

[Queercommie Girl]

Or we could just move beyond the concept of "norms."

As for a "proletarian bar" and a "bourgeoisie fine wine bar": they are the same, they are establishments that exchange money for alcoholic beverages; they are establishments that have managers with workers under them; they are capitalist.

I like the "proletarian norm" because I am a committed gender-equalist. I like cultural styles that blur gender boundaries as much as possible, not styles that emphasise on differences. I hate social-darwinist-reductionist and evolutionary-psychological paradigms of gender. I believe significant gender differentiation is a product of class society. According to empirical archaeological evidence of primitive communist societies before the emergence of class societies, (I would provide the evidence here but I cannot post links yet) there was no significant gender differentiation in either lifestyle or clothing. Women used tools and men had jewelry and wore make-up.

I believe communism would be a return to that gender-equalist state at a higher social and technological level, which for me personally is one reason why I am a Marxist in the first place.

I would be more supportive of women following "bourgeois styles" if you don't object to men having the same styles, but obviously in our class society today it's not really possible. So personally I prefer the more gender-equalist styles of the proletariat. Equality has an intrinsic value in itself.

[Foldered]

I would be more supportive of women following "bourgeois styles" if you don't object to men having the same styles,
Why would I object to that? If you've read anything else I've posted, it should be pretty obvious that I wouldn't object to that.

but obviously in our class society today it's not really possible.
I'm not entirely sure that's true.

From my perspective, any "norm", even if it's a norm of androgyny (which would essentially diminish any gender difference), is problematic.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why would I object to that? If you've read anything else I've posted, it should be pretty obvious that I wouldn't object to that.

I'm not entirely sure that's true.

From my perspective, any "norm", even if it's a norm of androgyny (which would essentially diminish any gender difference), is problematic.


Well no-one can predict the future, and no-one can dictate to others what is the "norm". However, there does exist a general trend to how society would evolve, it's not completely "random" or "relative".

I think it is likely that "androgynous" styles would become more dominant in a communist society, since gender differentiation was less in pre-class societies, and Engels stated that communism would be like a return to primitive communism at a higher social and technological level. However, I think such a trend would be "natural", rather than dictated or forced by anyone.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it's not true".

[Psy]

Or we could just move beyond the concept of "norms."

But what is the proletarian norm in this case? Think about rule 34 "if it exists, porn of it exists" basically anything can be sexulized, I doubt this idea of sexuality comes from the bourgeoisie yet it dominates porn on the Internet suggesting it comes from the proletariat.

You could argue it is due to the class unconsciousness nature of the current state of the proletariat but it still flies in the face of the bourgeoisie image of sexuality as if you follow the logic of rule 34 it means everything has the potential to be sexy at least to a fraction of the population.

While workers have the potential to be sexy it also means capitalists also have the potential to be sexy (duh it is how they reproduce) yet there is a concern for workers finding capitalists sexy just like there is a concern for workers finding Nazis sexy (yes symbols of fascism is a sex fetish).

I see the need of some kind of social norm not to ban fringe sexual fetishes but to keep them on the fringe.



As for a "proletarian bar" and a "bourgeoisie fine wine bar": they are the same, they are establishments that exchange money for alcoholic beverages; they are establishments that have managers with workers under them; they are capitalist.
Not the point, I meant the social relations at the two locations between customers and customers.

[Queercommie Girl]

I do however agree that relatively speaking, even mainstream bourgeois cultural norms are significantly better than fascistic reductionist social-darwinist cultural norms.

A Chinese Trotskyist friend once said, dialectically speaking the "ultra-left" could suddenly shift to the "ultra-right" sometimes. There is an ancient Chinese saying with a similar idea: "when a thing reaches its extreme, it will shift to its opposite". It is interesting that Hitler also called his system "national-SOCIALIST".

Personally I would refuse to live in a society governed by fascistic reductionist social-darwinist cultural norms. As far as I'm concerned, such a society is literally hell, and I will utilise whatever means at my disposal, including terrorism, sabotage and mass killings, to utterly destroy such a society.

[bloodbeard]

Because they are dressed in clothing engineered to hide the female form from raiders yet since mostly only Muslim women wear it now it no longer performs the task it was engineered for as if there was still raiders they could tell who was female and male by who was wearing a veil.

That's obviously not the viewpoint of islamic women who decide to veil usually have. It may have started out that way, but it was not the only use they found out of it. They should still be allowed to veil their faces and bodies to this day, if they like it and if they seem to think it is useful to them. You can also reason that wearing eyeliner/kajal started out as protection for the eyes, to keep it cool in the sun etc but now women can wear sunglasses + hats which does a better job at protecting their eyes. But women found lining their eyes also enhances the eye shape and their beauty so the practice is being applied to this day, not for the original purpose it was intended for but for cosmetic reasons, because it makes them feel good!




Also why would this utility be useful in a communist society? What function could hiding the female form possibility have in a communist society? How would hiding the female form bring us closer to a proletarian revolution or bring greater equality between the sexes?
And that changed the fact that the veil has no modern day utility because? How are women suppose to work with veils? Can you image anyone doing physical labor in a veil? Do you even know how many safety issues the veil causes for industrial workplaces?What function would showing more skin have in a communist society? If you are in a uniform or some overall-type workers garment, it would also not show off the female form.

FYI, I have absolutely no problem with men veiling themselves if they wishes.

The veil does not interfere in most professions and work environments. Of course, one should always put safety issues before anything else so there should be no exceptions when it comes to safety rules and regulations in the work place. But do you agree with me that once they leave the workplace, they should be allowed to dress as they wish? As long as the veil does not cause safety issues, there really is nothing wrong with women choosing to veil, either because of religious purposes or for their own personal reasons.

[Queercommie Girl]

People shouldn't wear sexy clothing at work, it's a distraction and un-necessary, and could be a health and safety hazard.

But in people's own time they should be able to wear whatever they wish.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not everything is directly "functional". Humans are not machines. Marxism is dialectical-materialist, not mechanical-materialist. The cultural superstructure is not just there "for show", it can counter-act on the materialist-economic base.

This is another reason why dialectics is important. It prevents society degenerating into the Borg Collective.

Anti-dialecticians may criticise dialectical materialism for being "too mystical", but Marxism actually rejects scientific positivism. Marxism recognises the social and cultural dimensions of religion, and don't just dismiss it simplistically as "superstition".

You could say Marxism is the dialectical negation of religion, but not its total negation. Just as post-class society is the dialectical negation of class society, but not its total negation.

[BeerShaman]

I hate some stuff, other stuff is ok and still some may be wonderful! However, in all honesty, I 've almost always found women or men more beautiful without make ups and stuff. Too many people put things on their hair in order to seem nice, while they are nicer when they wake up in the morning! It's a high value to maintain your body natural and show the world what you really are. It is evidence of the possible fact that you accept your nature and maybe, that you love it.
For me staying natural and clear represents my feelings of acceptance and love to nature ,which made me this way.:thumbup1:

[Psy]

That's obviously not the viewpoint of islamic women who decide to veil usually have. It may have started out that way, but it was not the only use they found out of it.

But the veil has not been re-engineered, it still is bulky, with poor ventilation, poor visibly and poor aesthetics.



They should still be allowed to veil their faces and bodies to this day, if they like it and if they seem to think it is useful to them.

Why, it hinders workers solidarity. How is women following the wishes of a ruling class showing their solidarity with the proletariat even when said ruling class has no power over them as they are in another bourgeois state?



You can also reason that wearing eyeliner/kajal started out as protection for the eyes, to keep it cool in the sun etc but now women can wear sunglasses + hats which does a better job at protecting their eyes. But women found lining their eyes also enhances the eye shape and their beauty so the practice is being applied to this day, not for the original purpose it was intended for but for cosmetic reasons, because it makes them feel good!

True but eyeliner has been re-engineered for its new utility the biggest change being adding color and better texture to eyeliners.



What function would showing more skin have in a communist society?

It has utility in cooling the skin down from the surrounding air and better show the female form.



If you are in a uniform or some overall-type workers garment, it would also not show off the female form.

http://englishrussia.com/images/soviet_b&w/105.jpg

You were saying?

Okay, yes they obscure the female form (some more then others) but not on propose it is a trade off for other traits of the clothing. Since they are not meant to hide the female form they don't obscure the face so even in the most bulky industrial clothing you still have a good view of the face except with face protection or breathing equipment yet again wearing them is a trade off.



FYI, I have absolutely no problem with men veiling themselves if they wishes.

Why would we?



The veil does not interfere in most professions and work environments. Of course, one should always put safety issues before anything else so there should be no exceptions when it comes to safety rules and regulations in the work place.

How so? It is not reflective making it unsafe for night work outside, it has worse protection then even cotton meaning it won't protect the skin from injury, it is bulky so it limits the wears mobility and limits viability giving the wearer tunnel vision due to not being able to see out the sides, it is loose so machinery can grab it and pull the wearer in. The veil has tons of negatives with no real positive traits.



But do you agree with me that once they leave the workplace, they should be allowed to dress as they wish? As long as the veil does not cause safety issues, there really is nothing wrong with women choosing to veil, either because of religious purposes or for their own personal reasons.
Yet the function of the veil goes against communism, it part of the muck of ages that is suppose to done away with.

[Salabra]

Also why would this utility [hijab] be useful in a communist society? What function could hiding the female form possibility have in a communist society? How would hiding the female form bring us closer to a proletarian revolution or bring greater equality between the sexes?

A GREAT BIG CHEER!!!


But the veil has not been re-engineered, it still is bulky, with poor ventilation, poor visibly and poor aesthetics...

Why, it hinders workers solidarity. How is women following the wishes of a ruling class showing their solidarity with the proletariat even when said ruling class has no power over them as they are in another bourgeois state?

How is women following the wishes of a bunch of bearded-bricks-with-dangly-bits who wish to control them (women) and their sexuality and make up crap about an invisible friend to justify the women’s ‘subordinate’ status ‘revolutionary’?


Yet the function of the veil goes against communism, it part of the muck of ages that is suppose to done away with.

And this says it all!

I can argue with you on your over-emphasis on the heavy-industrial nature of the future socialist society, Psy, but most assuredly NOT on islamic hijab.

Let’s get it straight right from the start — no matter how pretty, no matter how flattering, the islamic veil (khimaar is the Qur’anic term) is a symbol of oppression, a visible sign that women are regarded as lesser beings than men. The Qur’an is quite clear on this right at the outset — Men have authority over women because allah has made the one superior to the other … Surely allah is all-knowing and wise (Qur’an, Sura 4, Verse 23).


I have no idea who he is and what he say does not matter to me.

Of course you don’t know and of course you don’t care, so I’ll give you a brief heads up. In 2000 a group of Lebanese muslim lads committed a string of vicious rapes on young (non-muslim) women — whether the crimes were racially (or religiously) motivated remains a moot point, though the lads did employ some nasty racist logic and religious slurs.

The good Sheikh stepped up to defend the lads — who, it must be noted, have never expressed remorse for their crimes and continue to treat female staff in the centres wherein they are detained as inferior beings — stating that that “women would ‘sway suggestively’ before men, and then you get a judge without mercy and he gives you sixty-five years,” and “in the state of zina (sexual immorality, specifically pre- and extra-marital intercourse), the responsibility falls ninety per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa).” In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in which he said:
If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.
According to this logic, a woman — who is just ‘cat-meat’ in this charming fellow’s opinion — should either stay at home or be veiled/dressed ‘modestly’ (preferably both) — if not, she is inviting rape!

The Sheikh was appointed Mufti of Australia by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils in 1988 and re-appointed by the Council of Islamic Jurisprudence and Research in 2007 (he declined) — which tends to imply that his opinion is supposed to mean something to muslims.[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn1)


In fact the argument can be made that the quran does not itself order the veiling of women, let alone make any such claim as what the person in your example said.

To repeat — this man was appointed by not one, but two, Australian islamic bodies. One assumes that, in some way, he speaks for these bodies and therefore represents the accepted wisdom of the islamic communities.

And what of those islamic states where it is mandatory for women to veil themselves. I respectfully suggest that trundling up to the gate of the royal palace, or even a madrassa, in Riyadh and saying, “But look here, old chap, ‘the quran does not itself order the veiling of women’” is a good way to get yourself beheaded.

Ah, but it’s custom, you say. OK then, let’s play with that for a moment — the fact is that islam (like orthodox judaism) is an ideology with ‘rules’ intended to control every aspect of life and society, from the minutiae of religious observance, through banking and slavery, to what hand one can wipe one’s arse with. In muslim societies — as to a much lesser extent in christian ones at an earlier stage of European history — religious law theoretically takes priority over local laws and customs. Islam has had between five and fourteen centuries to stamp out the ‘sunnah, custom’ of hijab in muslim countries, if it were contrary to the Qur’an — or if it really wanted to. The fact that islamic men still impose hijab on islamic women (yes, I’ll get to your “free choice” argument in a moment) implies that the men who make the decisions find it useful.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn2), [3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn3)

Moreover, as one who studies islam, you must be aware that islamic ‘law’ is based not just on the Qur’an and sunnah, but on the ahadith (singular hadith). These are little fairy-tales originating from the supposed words and deeds of Muhammad and his coterie — they may not be true, but the fact that they are believed to be true makes them indispensable as supplements to and clarifications of the Qur'an, and in questions of islamic jurisprudence.


Can I ask, who has made this about YOU? Are you muslim? You do not need to abide by their law and way of life so I really don't know why it is making you upset. While you wish to be taken seriously however way you are dressed, bikini or business suit, why couldn't you respect the wish of muslim women, who wish to be taken seriously by dressing a certain way? Do you wish to impose your views on them? to what? liberate them i presume?

I am in the process of writing a RevLeft blog entry on topics related to this — I guess I’ll have to anticipate some of my arguments to respond to you.

Am I muslim? No — nor am I christian, or jewish, or hindu, or even lesbian-feminist wiccan. One may debate the role of religion and religions in human life (as explanation, as consolation, or as inspiration, for example), but one important function is as instruments of social control. IMO, all religions (with the exception of lesbian-feminist wicca) are toxic brews of misogyny and homophobia, and a major purpose of the rules and rituals of all religions (again with the exception of lesbian-feminist wicca) is to control the sexual power of women, to corral women into marriage with ‘approved’ men — often for the purpose of creating or strengthening relationships between men — and to ensure that what comes out of women’s bellies bears a ‘genetic’ relationship to the ‘approved’ man and to no-one else. Moreover, all religions (possibly including lesbian-feminist wicca — the holy texts are unclear on this point :D) encourage true believers to neglect the present life — suicide bombers notwithstanding — in favour of ‘pie in the sky when you die.’

I will as happily direct my anger — verbal and physical — against christianity, judaism, hinduism or galaxian ultra-orthodoxy (I have a soft spot for lesbian-feminist wicca :D). However I do not hear many RevLefters defending these religions with the same enthusiasm as they seem to defend islam.

What I am is a communist. This does not mean that I am just against things (capitalism, imperialism, zionism, etc etc) — it means that I am for things too. One of the things I am for is a society where women (and gays) have complete social and juridical equality with men (and straights). This is a situation that most definitely does not hold true in islam.[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn4)

Hijab is the visible expression in islam that women are not only different, but lesser beings. Muslim women and girls are not only being told that they are vessels of sin (“allah created sexual desire in ten parts; then he gave nine parts to women and one to men”) — as are women in christian churches and jewish synagogues as well — but that failing to dress ‘properly’ can not only have them suffering in this life (getting raped) but being punished in the next (because they ‘enticed’ the rapist).

You wouldn’t think you’d have to be a communist to see that wrapping a woman in a veil and secluding her in the home is a hideous oppression crying out to be wiped from the face of the earth.

To raise the bar a bit, it seems to me that much of the Left, suffering from ‘death of communism PTSD,’ has given up on a positive ‘cultural’ programme and, falling back on the defensive, has grasped like a drowning swimmer at the ‘lifebuoy’ of post-modernist cultural relativism. Liberals who hold this view assert that one must not criticize another’s ‘culture,’ no matter how unpleasantly it manifests itself, because one can’t really ‘understand’[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn5) it until one is steeped in it. And ‘we on the Left,’ who are willing to tear down so much, must be even more circumspect, lest we be branded as ‘cultural imperialists’ and confused with the US, UK, Australia, France (rarely do we hear the word ‘imperialist’ hurled at Germany these days!), Spain and Portugal — and Israel. This is obviously the basis of your “who made this about YOU?” question (you see, I am taking you seriously, not simply dismissing you as a purveyor of clichés originated in Hollywood movies) — because I’m “not a muslim,” I have no right to an opinion.

This is just so much nonsense, Red Roses. I can criticise the roman catholic doctrine on transubstantiation without being roman catholic and “understanding its inner meaning for roman catholics.” I can criticise the hindu/buddhist doctrine of re-incarnation — which can encourage in its adherents some mind-blowingly heartless behaviour — without being hindu/buddhist and “understanding its power of solace for hindus/buddhists and its function as a sort of ‘social glue’.” I can, of course, criticize every aspect of scientology without being a scientologist. But for some reason I can’t criticize hijab because I’m not a muslim and don’t “understand its social and spiritual significance”?

Of course I have a right to an opinion, and I have a right to propose solutions and to criticise the solutions proposed and adopted by others. And you accept this too, or you wouldn’t be a member of a forum called RevLeft swapping opinions on how to improve the world.

And you ignored what I said next:
I honestly find offensive the assumption that a man cannot “take me seriously” if he can see that I am a woman. I imagine most men — as distinct from little boys who need Invisible Daddy to direct their every thought and action — would find such a slur on their own gender offensive as well.
Do I “have to obey their laws”? Some say that I should, just as some christians want to create a theocracy based on the mind-numbing idiocies of their godman. Forcing people “to obey their laws” is what the abrahamic religions do, dear Red Roses (well, two out of three of them — judaism gave up proselytization as part of a deal struck with the Romans after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE)[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn6). No attempt to impose ‘laws’ based on the babbling of invisible friends should have any place on the Left.

Do I want to ‘save’ muslim women from being forced into hijab. Definitely. Just as I want to ‘save’ jewish agunot — orthodox women who are unable to remarry and have legitimate jewish children because their husbands won’t give them a get (a bill of divorce authorized by a three-man rabbinical court). Just as I want to ‘save’ christian women trapped and abused in loony hyper-masculinist communities around the world on the basis of the violent woman-hating sexuality of the Books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, the smirking misogyny of the Epistle to Timothy or the frank psychopathology of the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelations. Just as I want to save lesbians — from South Africa to India — who are raped by husbands, brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins or Joe Bloggs down the road to ‘cure’ them of their lesbianism. Just as I want to ‘save’ the women (and men) — muslim, jewish, christian or non-abrahamic — who have their genitals mutilated because somebody’s invisible friend thinks it’s a Good Thing, because it will ‘control’ their sexual urges, or because it will get them a Good Husband (or Wife). And just as I want to ‘save’ the women I talk to in the course of my work from being beaten every day by boyfriends and husbands — women who have been brainwashed (“if only I loved him better, he wouldn’t hurt me — it must be my fault”) as surely as those who think hijab is a ‘symbol of liberation.’

Oh dear, what an ‘arrogant Westerner’ and ‘female chauvinist’ I am!


Previously you make the claim that they veil themselves so men would not be tempted, and I have explained to you that according to the quran, islam places that responsibility on the individual, man or woman, to take responsibility for themselves not be "tempted", to control themselves.

To repeat the quote above — “in the state of zina, the responsibility falls ninety per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement.” This seems to be a consensus viewpoint among muslims, vouchsafed as such by muslim acquaintances, by most islamic (not even islamist) books and websites and even by ex-muslims such as Tariq Ali — in fact it is a version of the passage quoted above about “ten parts of sexual desire,” rumoured to have sprung from the lips of the Khalif Ali himself. I am happy to be corrected if you can quote me an authoritative muslim scholar who has abrogated this passage[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn7).

By such idiotic misogynist reckoning, women are not only responsible for their own behaviour, but for men’s behaviour as well — men, in this view, are apparently so pathetic that they can’t restrain themselves from attacking women (who must therefore be ‘hidden’ to ‘protect’ them). What is this, if not a claim that women are ‘tempting’ men? If I were a man, I’d be grossly insulted by this line of ‘logic’ — apparently some muslim men are happy to rely on it as an excuse to assault unveiled women.[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn8)

And this is the reason that these garments are worn only by women. Please do not try to tell me that men as well as women are enjoined in the Qu’ran to dressmodestly to cover their ‘awrah – nakedness, defect (!!! … sorry, comrade, my body might be defective, in that it doesn’t work as well as it should, but it is not, per se, a ‘defect’).’ For a muslim man awrah is only waist-to-knee or just the swimsuit region[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn9), while a muslim woman is entirely awrah — even her voice is a form of awrah, according to several ahadith, and “it is not permissible for her to uncover that (her awrah) unless out of necessity.”

People who take this sort of thing seriously believe that a woman who fails to take account of it is behaving obscenely and is open to being assaulted, as the Qur’anic verse which orders muslim women to cover themselves makes clear:
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known as such (believing women) and not molested (Qur’an, Sura 33, Verse 59).
The key phrase here of course is “that they shall be known as such and not molested”. Conversely the failure to fully cover up (as another hadith tells us Muhammad himself demonstrated by cloaking himself and leaving only one eye uncovered in order to see) leaves them open to being molested under the code of “she was asking for it.”


That's obviously not the viewpoint of islamic women who decide to veil usually have. It may have started out that way, but it was not the only use they found out of it. They should still be allowed to veil their faces and bodies to this day, if they like it and if they seem to think it is useful to them.

Wanna ‘prove’ that muslim women love hijab? Ask a group of 15-year-old girls in Gaza or in the Swat valley or in a muslim suburb on the outskirts of Paris or Manchester with the rest of the family in the next room listening. Oh, and throw in the odd female convert — converts are absolutely enamoured of their new addiction. Wanna ‘prove’ that muslim women hate hijab? Ask a group of 15-year-old girls in the western suburbs of Sydney, who get sick of brothers and cousins following them from home-gate to bus-stop to school to McDonalds to the mall and back to home-gate ready to report them to dad or Uncle Ahmed or to the imam if they remove their khumur (plural of “khimaar, headscarf”) or talk to boys to whom they are not related.

Seriously, the extent to which Muslim women have voluntarily taken to hijab is vastly overestimated.

Yes, there is a small movement, largely limited to Western schools and universities, of muslim women claiming that they feel liberated by wearing khumur. These women aver that they feel protected from being perceived and judged as physical objects. Such an argument has some appeal to non-muslim students — as well as many adult ‘feminists’— because many are disenchanted with the porn and hook-up cultures that largely define and shape modern Western gender relations.

I have dealt with this earlier, but to reiterate — the solution is not to ‘protect’ girls and women, either from themselves or from the big bad world, by wrapping them in a mobile tent and locking them away under the ‘protection’ of a male. The solution is to encourage girls to develop strength and self-confidence, enabling them to give back as good as they get, while at the same time striving to create a society where women and men are equals and the threat of coercive sexual violence is unthinkable.

Yes, there is an equally small group who claim that they wear hijab out of cultural pride, somewhat in the manner of the young woman of Hungarian descent in my street who wears her national costume in red, white and green every year on 15 March. Good for them — and for her. But, just as the Hungarian woman’s garb is a political statement, so is hijab. Religion is always political — the pope’s zucchetto or Kiril of Smolensk’s mitre is as much a political statement as the neo-nazi’s swastika armband or my budyonovka.[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftn10)

Yes, there are some genuinely religious muslim women and some converts. Good for them too!

But the majority of muslim women do not choose to wear hijab, Red Roses — they are pressured into it by their families, who present it to them from the time that they are very young as an inevitability for when they reach puberty, because this is what “good muslim women” wear. They are policed in terms of how ‘properly’ they are dressed by fathers, brothers, uncles and cousins and by other members of the community (and in some countries by ‘morality police’).

Moreover, while there are men in every community who believe that they have a right to force their will on women, the rise of fundamentalism in muslim communities means that there are now muslim men who will claim they have a right to coerce women into ‘proper muslim behaviour,’ including wearing hijab, by violence if necessary. The threat of being beaten, raped or even murdered for going uncovered is an increasingly realistic one in many places and it absolutely counts as coercion.

Most people would rather not admit that they are coerced, especially not to outsiders who may look down at them as a result. The psychological role of such coercion tends to be underplayed when discussing hijab with non-muslims, and is thus vastly underestimated by ‘outsiders.’

And then there are women who are as fervently committed to islamism/’political islam’ as I am to communism — but they are on the opposite side of the barricade. Yet even they deserve compassion, for, once the promised world-spanning ummah (muslim community) has been achieved, the women who fought for it will be sent back into seclusion by the bearded-bricks-with-dangly-bits who think that their invisible friend has given them the ‘right’ to control women.

________________________

[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref1) He is also on record as an anti-semite, a homophobe, and a sanctioner of domestic violence. I’d give you quotations, but they are off-topic — his comments on hijab are not.

[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref2) In fact, islam finds some customs so useful that it has institutionalized them, incorporating them as yet another prop to the ‘law.’ Circumcision is not mandated in the Qur’an either — it is sunnah, custom — but that didn’t stop a group of muslim fundamentalists from forcibly circumcising over a hundred christian women and men, including grandmothers and children, in Aceh in 2001.

In the Alice-in-Wonderland world that islamic scholars inhabit there is debate about whether Muhammad was circumcised at seven days or whether he was born without a foreskin. This ‘urgent’ question has about the same relevance as the christian debate about whether Adam and Eve had navels!

[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref3) The only country where hijab was abolished was Turkey, and its abolition was not the result of any ‘islamic reformation,’ but of the decree of a bourgeois nationalist named Kemal, called ‘The Father of the Turks.’ The ban is currently being eroded, as is Ataturk’s reputation — some of his fellow muslims (from the safe distance of Aberdeen and Islamabad) now describe him as a ‘heretic’ and an example of ‘democratic decadence’ inspired by the West. And if a radical islamist party were to take office in Ankara, the position of Turkish women would deteriorate faster than a Polish pope’s commitment to ‘freedom.’

[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref4) It does not hold true in christianity, judaism or hinduism either, especially in their extremist guises — but once again, I don’t see as many RevLefters queuing to defends those beliefs.

[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref5) Note that ‘understanding’ in this paradigm ranges from “being sympathetic to” through “critical appreciation of” to “swallowing it, hook, line and sinker.”

[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref6) And please don’t try to quote “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” This came from the earliest period of islam, when it was weak and struggling. After they had an army and a state of their own, muslims were quite prepared to ‘compel’ conversion at the point of the sword. So were christians, of course — muslims were at least honest about it, developing the concept of ‘abrogation,’ whereby later texts trumped earlier ones.

[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref7) You will tell me that there is no central authority in the islamic world, no ‘pope’ who hands down the ultimate answer. This means that the muslims of my city may not accept the ‘90% rule’ but those of the next city may believe it and therefore believe that an unveiled woman is “asking for it.” Because I do not know beforehand which way the muslims in any area are going to jump, I must go veiled at all times or “risk the consequences.” Coercion proven, I think.

[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref8) Yes, just as christian men are happy to say, “she was flashing her tits at me — she was asking for it.” However this thread is about hijab.

[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref9) To return to the “Alice in Wonderland” world inhabited by theologians of all religions, there is actually an argument that since Muhammad uncovered his thigh while riding a camel, men are at perfect liberty to go about in a thong or even naked.

[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#_ftnref10) And my Hungarian friend can actually remove her costume, should she so desire — even on 15 March!

[gorillafuck]

Bans on the hijab are done with racist intentions (such as in France) as well as telling specifically Muslim women (or women who identify with middle eastern culture) how to dress, which is ridiculous. Banning the hijab would serve islamophobia as well as being a condescending action towards Muslim women, as if non-muslims or non-arabs can just tell them what they are not allowed to wear.

And how would the hijab would hinder class solidarity? I don't see why anyone would have a problem taking a political action alongside someone wearing a hijab, that's stupid.

[Raúl Duke]

Bans on the hijab are done with racist intentions Depends on context...

In Syria, the government has taken steps to ban the niqab (in schools) in the name of secularism and woman's rights. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/07/syria-government-bans-niqab-in-public-schools.html)

In France, the supporters of the ban say the same thing but anyone can infer it has a lot to do with xenophobia to a degree. In the case of Syria, xenophobia is not a factor however.


Personally, I'm neither for or against the ban of the hijab-niqab in France or the rest of Europe and see the issue as minor compared to more pressing issues and state policies; in other words, I don't see this as an issue for the left to get worked up in.
When it comes to oppression of immigrants, there are other policies at place that are more oppressive than the ban on the hijab/etc which demands our opposition.
When it comes to woman's rights, the hijab/etc-wearing is just an aspect/symptom of patriarchy. Targeting the hijab/niqab does not target the root of the problem.

In Syria, I see the niqab ban as a token "step in the right direction" but as I mentioned earlier it does not target the root of the problem.

[gorillafuck]

Depends on context...

In Syria, the government has taken steps to ban the niqab (in schools) in the name of secularism and woman's rights. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/07/syria-government-bans-niqab-in-public-schools.html)

In France, the supporters of the ban say the same thing but anyone can infer it has a lot to do with xenophobia to a degree. In the case of Syria, xenophobia is not a factor however.
That's interesting, I did not know that Syria had that ban. In western Europe bans and proposed bans on the hijab are for xenophobic reasons involving scaremongering about Muslims (even if they make up bullshit reasons to make it seem credible).

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

This might not be a Philosophy discussion so forgive me. But I wanted to ask you guys about your opinion on women, their image, the accessories, the apparel and all the things they use and do to "look pretty".
So? I look pretty, deal with it. :rolleyes:



I have one question why do most women in western culture or influence feel the need to wear make up? fake eye lashes, fake nails, make them sels appear taller with heels.. hair extensions, dying their hair, mascara, etc. etc. etc.
Because I like how I look. Though I only do some of those things.

[Adi Shankara]

Fact of the matter is, heterosexual women (I don't know about lesbians, as I never have been close to a "lipstick lesbian" before) wear high heels, eyeliner, etc. to attract and arouse men, just like men act like asswipes, act bold, to attract and arouse women. that's not anything to do with "bourgeois attitudes" and what not, it's just biology. maybe the culture has alot to do with what attracts men and it could become impressive upon society and thus oppressive if it ends up being imposed by society, but if a woman on her own ambition wants to dress in short skirts and get her nails done, then that's her call to biology, attempting to attract a male in western culture. (since I can't speak for other cultures)

why is this so controversial? man's arousal is mostly visual, so a heterosexual woman would obviously accentuate her physical appearance to a man, while a woman's attraction is mostly psychological, in that she would be attracted to boldness, dominant traits, etc. (this is psycho-sexuality 101 btw, not me saying this).

remind me again why this is controversial?

[Salabra]

Bans on the hijab are done with racist intentions (such as in France) ...

Wait on — who’s talking of banning hijab?

Even in purely bourgeois terms, simply ‘banning the burqa’ (this has become a nice alliterative catchcry here) will be counterproductive. As well as violating the rights of muslims, a ban on clothing is a sloppy way of getting at the root problem — the systematic, violent coercion of women.

A woman who is being coerced by her family and/or community to wear the burqa/niqab is in far more danger, and thus subject to far more coercion in larger matters, if she is forced by law to go around unmasked. This is because the face covering affords her a degree of anonymity in her daily business. For example, with the face covering she may be able to stop at a women’s health clinic or a government office after she goes grocery shopping. Without it, the fear of being seen by a member of her community who will then tell her extended family is more prohibitive.

If a woman is not allowed to go out without covering, she may never get to go out at all, may never meet or even see anyone who is not a member of her closed community and may never become aware that there is a world outside it.

It is the regime of coercion that we should be opposing —a regime that allows men in the street to beat and rape women for not conforming publicly in matters of clothing and behaviour and male family members to beat and kill female family members for behaviour which should be permissible for every human being, yet is forbidden to women on the basis of the ‘laws’ promulgated by their invisible friend. The fact that a handful of muslim women may choose to wear the burqa/niqab does not detract from the fact that most are subject to extremely serious coercion to do so.

And who would we communists ‘petition’ to do the banning — the ‘divide-and-rule’ capitalist state, which is happy to pander to christian groups while discriminating against others, thus splitting workers by religion as well as by gender, ethnicity etc? We should be willing to defend (oops, there’s that naughty word again) oppressed minorities from the capitalist state and from racist attacks — but at the same time we should point out that communism can never really be reconciled with any form of religious doctrine, because in the end most religions trample on the rights of women.


Depends on context...

In Syria, the government has taken steps to ban the niqab (in schools) in the name of secularism and woman's rights. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/07/syria-government-bans-niqab-in-public-schools.html)

In Tunisia also the burqa/niqab is banned in government buildings.


…(this is psycho-sexuality 101 btw, not me saying this)…

And of course ‘psycho-sexuality 101’ is some sort of absolute truth, rather than simply a set of assumptions about biology and psychology concocted in a bourgeois university and mediated through bourgeois sensibilities?

[Raúl Duke]

man's arousal is mostly visual, so a heterosexual woman would obviously accentuate her physical appearance to a man, while a woman's attraction is mostly psychological, in that she would be attracted to boldness, dominant traits, etc.

"psycho-sexuality" these days are mostly just evolutionary psychology's view on sexuality. Evolutionary Psychology hasn't always been right.

I'm more willing to say that attraction and the formation of romantic relationships is a extremely complex thing. IMO, A man's attraction also has a psychological aspect and a woman's also has a physical aspect in a ratio that varies across from each individual


wear high heels, eyeliner, etc. to attract and arouse men, just like men act like asswipes, act bold, to attract and arouse women.

You're made an observation yet seem to ignore something, because a substantial population (in a statistical sense, as in it's worthy cause for further investigation and could point towards the invalidity of that theory), according to my observations, of people do not fit this mold (and they do have relationships, act differently, etc).

In fact the people who fit into the evolutionary psychology theory that you mentioned tend to be the people who are more like "TV stereotypes" or, to be honest, not quite bright people.

Even in Evo Psych, being an asshole, as a trait, has negatives that I've heard of new yet weak explanations on why the asshole may not "get" a certain woman.


remind me again why this is controversial?

It's (although not in a political sense) because it has been challenged and has failed to live up to reality in many occasions.

[Adi Shankara]

"psycho-sexuality" these days are mostly just evolutionary psychology's view on sexuality. Evolutionary Psychology hasn't always been right.

I'm more willing to say that attraction and the formation of romantic relationships is a extremely complex thing. IMO, A man's attraction also has a psychological aspect and a woman's also has a physical aspect in a ratio that varies across from each individual



You're made an observation yet seem to ignore something, because a substantial population (in a statistical sense, as in it's worthy cause for further investigation and could point towards the invalidity of that theory), according to my observations, of people do not fit this mold (and they do have relationships, act differently, etc).

In fact the people who fit into the evolutionary psychology theory that you mentioned tend to be the people who are more like "TV stereotypes" or, to be honest, not quite bright people.

Even in Evo Psych, being an asshole, as a trait, has negatives that I've heard of new yet weak explanations on why the asshole may not "get" a certain woman.



It's (although not in a political sense) because it has been challenged and has failed to live up to reality in many occasions.

You know why I like you? you can give back a good answer contrary to my opinion without resorting to being an asshole.

But I guess I was basing it more off what I am attracted to, physically speaking--I'm really attracted to intelligence and girls who act "weird" (if that makes sense), but physically, I like girls who are really the more traditional feminine type--my girl dresses like this for me, but she is in no way oppressed. she loves pleasing me physically as I do to her just the same.

but you're right, not everyone fits this paradigm, many women would probably find jerks a complete turn off, just like not every guy likes make up or a more traditional feminine demeanor.

[Raúl Duke]

You know why I like you? you can give back a good answer contrary to my opinion without resorting to being an asshole.

Thanks, I usually aim to give straight to the point answers, there's no reason to be an asshole most of the time anyway on the internet (although I won't deny I've done it, last time I did was to Mahatma but he's really being obtuse/bone-headed); although, it's common to see people act it here.


just like not every guy likes make up or a more traditional feminine demeanor.

I actually dislike most make-up, although sometimes a little bit of it rightly applied makes looks seem aesthetically better to me.

For example, Ellen Paige didn't look stunning in Inception (although I wouldn't say she's ugly) yet I saw a picture of her in an awards ceremony with eyeliner and eye shadow and she looks quite stunning and her looks captured my attention.

Although I'm not attracted much to traditional demeanor per se or perhaps only slightly, although my attraction is not based off that mostly.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Fact of the matter is, heterosexual women (I don't know about lesbians, as I never have been close to a "lipstick lesbian" before) wear high heels, eyeliner, etc. to attract and arouse men, just like men act like asswipes, act bold, to attract and arouse women. that's not anything to do with "bourgeois attitudes" and what not, it's just biology. maybe the culture has alot to do with what attracts men and it could become impressive upon society and thus oppressive if it ends up being imposed by society, but if a woman on her own ambition wants to dress in short skirts and get her nails done, then that's her call to biology, attempting to attract a male in western culture. (since I can't speak for other cultures)
You speak of this as though there is no in-between. You have bisexual women, you have omni/pansexual women and even more on that spectrum of in-between. I figure I am somewhere on that spectrum. Make up, eye liner, mascara, eye shadow, heels, etc. when I wear them has nothing to do with what men (or anyone) thinks of me for that matter. I just like feeling pretty.


why is this so controversial? man's arousal is mostly visual, so a heterosexual woman would obviously accentuate her physical appearance to a man, while a woman's attraction is mostly psychological, in that she would be attracted to boldness, dominant traits, etc. (this is psycho-sexuality 101 btw, not me saying this).
My arousal is sooooo audio. Maybe textural.
Not really psychological, or visual (though I'd get closer with psychological than visual)


remind me again why this is controversial?
Why do you ask so many questions?:rolleyes::laugh:

... Just kidding.

[Queercommie Girl]

The way men and women dress and behave is not directly due to biology, but determined through the intermediate agency of culture and society.

Let's be scientific here. Let's firstly hypothetically suppose that all gender traits are directly determined by biology, then one would expect there to be significant gender differentiation always in all of human history.

But this is not what archaeological evidence shows. The evidence shows that during the era of primitive communism, the distinction between genders is significantly less pronounced, even though it was not absent. However, with the rise of class society, gender inequality becomes more explicit and significant. This suggests that gender inequality is to a significant extent due to the emergence and existence of class society.

Of course, women and men are free to dress and behave how they wish, but it is wrong to assume that the stereotypical way for men and women to dress and act is somehow the "normal" way relative to all the other ways.

[Adi Shankara]

The way men and women dress and behave is not directly due to biology, but determined through the intermediate agency of culture and society.

Let's be scientific here. Let's firstly hypothetically suppose that all gender traits are directly determined by biology, then one would expect there to be significant gender differentiation always in all of human history.

But this is not what archaeological evidence shows. The evidence shows that during the era of primitive communism, the distinction between genders is significantly less pronounced, even though it was not absent. However, with the rise of class society, gender inequality becomes more explicit and significant. This suggests that gender inequality is to a significant extent due to the emergence and existence of class society.

Of course, women and men are free to dress and behave how they wish, but it is wrong to assume that the stereotypical way for men and women to dress and act is somehow the "normal" way relative to all the other ways.

Don't gender roles come out of somewhere though? you can't say it's all patriarchy, because not every society is patriarchal, and even in matriarch societies (like some of those in Papua New Guinea, or Central Africa), men are still the hunters, and women, still the gatherers/nurturers.

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't gender roles come out of somewhere though? you can't say it's all patriarchy, because not every society is patriarchal, and even in matriarch societies (like some of those in Papua New Guinea, or Central Africa), men are still the hunters, and women, still the gatherers/nurturers.

Actually in primitive communist societies gender roles are more fluidic than you speak. There is also the presence of LGBT/Queer people, like the "Two-Spirits" among the Native Americans.

However, I did say that gender differences were not completely absent. So statistically you would have more men as hunters and warriors and women as gatherers and nurturers, but it was not a clear-cut difference.

Even allowing for intrinsic biological differences, human beings are simply far too complex to be fitted neatly into rigid gender categories. Really any significant gender disparity should only show up in statistical analysis, not dogmatically applied to every single individual.

Read this archaeological article and the evidence it presents first, this is an example of neolithic primitive communism.

http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html)

Individuality and gender relations

The burial objects found in the graves emphasize not only social equality since they differ only marginally concerning their quantity and character (Mellaart 1967: 206) but also confirm the individual differences between persons. The burial objects even vary within one living space (Mellaart 1963: 100f.) and thus rather document differences between individuals than differences due to membership of different classes (Childe 1952: 143-144).
Mellaart could not imagine the societal wealth he found to be generally, equally distributed. Therefore he presumed that the area he excavated was the quarter of the priests, and in the rest of the town circumstances must have been poorer. This was an assumption which could be rejected with good arguments especially after the results of skeleton examinations had been published by Angel in 1971. Already in 1969, it was demonstrated that the collective findings were easier to reconcile with a society without stratification (Narr 1969: 12/2, see esp. Grünert 1982: 194, Hermann 1983: 65-68, and, on the basis of Mellaart's results: Hummel 1996: 269). Hodder's early investigations proved that Çatalhöyük looked everywhere as it did in the area excavated by Mellaart (Hodder 1996b: 360/2-361/1, Balter 1998: 1443/2, Hodder 2003: 10). This means that in Çatalhöyük those differences between people are absent that are so striking in a society divided into classes. Archaeologists accordingly describe this society as egalitarian (Balter 1999: 891/3, Moore 1998) or discuss subtle differences between an egalitarian and a stratified society (for a stratified society: Wason 1994: 153-179, for a society in between: Hodder 1996b: 366/2, for a purely egalitarian society: Hamilton 1996: 262/2). Here, Naomi Hamilton finds the resolving words for this discussion: "Difference need not mean structural inequality. Ranking by age, achieved status, social roles based on skill and knowledge etc. do not necessarily contradict an egalitarian ethos."

The graves in Çatalhöyük already show that a social division of labour was missing since the dead were given tools for various activities of basic production and in each house there were seeds (Connolly 1999: 798/2). However, it can also be seen that people were partially specialized according to their aptitudes in skilled activities that exceeded basic production, from burial objects such as painting utensils or copper (Mellaart 1967: 209). Presumably by producing ceramics, people in Çatalhöyük had discovered how to smelt metallic copper from copper ore, as documented by the preserved slag (Mellaart 1967: 217-218).

There is a striking difference to class societies: burial objects were not produced explicitly for burials, but they rather were goods which people had used during their lives and which were left to them in death (Mellaart 1967: 209). This also holds true for objects which truly are at the end of the "gradual spectrum". Perfectly crafted flint daggers, mirrors sanded from obsidian that were more brilliant than antique metal mirrors (Mellaart 1967: pl. XIV and XII) as well as flawless tools made from obsidian (Hamblin 1975: 17), all of them found in graves: they document both the deployed different preferences and abilities of people who were able to produce them and the respect of their fellow human beings who left these objects to them in their graves instead of retaining them for themselves. Pieces like these led Mellaart to the assumption that they could have been produced in this perfection only by full specialists, particularly since he did not find any midden resulting from production (Mellaart 1967: 211, Balter 1998: 1443/2). During the new excavations specific attention was paid, therefore, to microscopic traces of midden in the clay floors, and domestic waste was analyzed. In this way, evidence could be provided for midden resulting from working on stones. This means that manufacturing stones was not the task of full specialists but was conducted in every household, or associated households in the case of complex production processes that were possible only collectively (Connolly 1999: 798-799, also see Balter 1998: 1443/2 and Hodder 1999: 6/1). Burial objects that were found in a house had been produced and used in that house and been buried with the person who had manufactured and used them. Hodder draws the conclusion that "we cannot argue for total control of production by an elite" (Hodder 1996b: 361/2).
Just like the "living houses" that changed with their inhabitants and were adapted to changing living circumstances, this attachment of people to the objects of daily life conveys an integrated image of organic structures and vital coherences.

Truly outstanding and especially remarkable is the fact that women, too, received tools as burial objects, just as men did (Mellaart 1967: 209) (Footnote:This seems to have held true for neolithic civilizations in general, even for Central European linear pottery culture (linearbandkeramik) (Nordholz 2004: 124). However, this interrelation rarely seems to be observed. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html#_ftn6) 6). In later class societies, men (of the "middle classes") received burial objects that allowed conclusions as to their profession but women's graves contained only jewellery: rich women were given rich jewellery, poor women poor jewellery. That these women worked just as hard - if not even harder - than men is not reflected in the burial objects. The tools in neolithic women graves illustrate that women were recognized as equals as a matter of course in the production of goods. This, in turn, supports the assumption that in this society the antagonism between production and reproduction was abolished. There are mural paintings in Çatalhöyük that complement and confirm this assumption; they show men dancing with children (Mellaart 1966: pl. LIV, LV, LIX, LXI), a motif that does not occur in class society until the 13th century B.C. and also later only led a shadowy existence. Also, in contrast to Mellaart's statement, not only women were buried with children but men also (Hamilton 1996: 253/1).


However, not only were women buried with tools but also men were buried with jewellery, partially with considerable amounts (Hamilton 1996: 262) (Fussnote:Mellaart's converse argument stems from the fact that he frequently determined the sex of the skeletons according to their grave goods (!). It was only after Angel's anatomical examinations of the skeletons six years after that the true facts were revealed (Hamilton 1996: 245/2, 258/2). (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html#_ftn7) 7). Naomi Hamilton who in Hodder's team is responsible for working with the graves and therefore for analyzing gender relations, doubts if the definition of a social gender apart from biological sex is at all helpful in the discussion on Çatalhöyük. She regards the concept of gender as bound to our times and their problems and considers the possibility that neolithic humans did not perceive man and woman as being a polarity (Hamilton 1996: 262). Indeed, already in 1990 Hodder developed the thought that the decisive polarity for neolithic perception may have been of a different nature (Hodder 1990). It is interesting that more recent considerations lead to an analogous assumption concerning the Palaeolithic (Heidefrau 2004). The author, Elke Heidefrau, writes: "Possibly, the discussion on gender ... mainly reveals something about our own culture: a culture in which it seems immensely important to know sex of another person (see the first question asked after the birth of a child). To us, a culture in which this is not the case seems almost unthinkable; therefore, such thoughts could open new horizons to us and thus enrich the current gender discussion!" (Heidefrau 2004: 148; translated). Obviously, at that time the real individuals were at the centre, and when they liked to adorn themselves their jewellery was not taken away from them when they died - regardless of their sex. And it was people who produced, possessed and used tools and therefore also kept them in their graves - again, regardless of their sex.

Hodder dedicated a separate publication to gender relations in order to refute the older conceptions of a matriarchy in Çatalhöyük (Hodder 2004). In this article in "Scientific American" he presents an impressive documentation of gender equality in Çatalhöyük: there were no significant differences concerning nutrition, body height and life style between men and women. Men and women performed very similar tasks, as can be deduced from the abrasion of bones. Both sexes stayed in and outside the house equally long and were equally active in the kitchen as in tool production. There are no hints pointing to a gender-related division of labour. It is only from artwork that one can deduce that outside the house, men hunted whereas women engaged in agriculture (cf. Hodder). Mural paintings show, however, women together with men in depictions of chase, as published in Mellaart's excavation reports (Mellaart 1966: Pl LIIb, LVIb, LXIIb). And the equal burial of men and women sealed equality even in death.

[Queercommie Girl]

My point, to sum up in a nut-shell, is essentially this:

In primitive communist societies, people are essentially free in terms of genderal expression. People can express themselves as they wish, there were no real imposed rigid gender standards like there are today under capitalism and other forms of class societies.

However, due to the intrinsic biological differences between men and women, this kind of "free choice" still manifest itself at the statistical level as genderally skewed, i.e. more men as hunters and warriors, more women as carers and gatherers etc.

However, such a statistical skew is not the result of any kind of "conscious planning", but simply the natural outcome of free choice.

In other words, gender relations were not absolutely equal, but were fluidic.

[Raúl Duke]

In other words, gender relations were not absolutely equal, but were fluidic.

This recalls what I learned in cultural anthropology.

While there may have been even division of labor among sexes in what people here will describe as 'primitive communism', the element of power between the sexes was generally more or less equal (usually, although there's exceptions perhaps due to material factors). Even if some societies counted a partilineal or matrilineal line of succession, they also tended to have a more or less equal level of power (as long as they were "primitive communist").

Gender inequality in some cases stemmed out (or grew noticeable) when women where pushed completly out of what was generally viewed as the productive sphere of life. For example, Herero Cattle herders have a patriarchal culture while their Dobe Ju neighbors had a less patriarchal culture; in the Dobe Ju culture women had a important role in the sphere of production while in the Herero culture men did all the cattle herding. It was not uncommon for Dobe Ju women to desert their Herero husbands due to their sexism (which is due to their cultural differences).

[Queercommie Girl]

This recalls what I learned in cultural anthropology.

While there may have been even division of labor among sexes in what people here will describe as 'primitive communism', the element of power between the sexes was generally more or less equal (usually, although there's exceptions perhaps due to material factors). Even if some societies counted a partilineal or matrilineal line of succession, they also tended to have a more or less equal level of power (as long as they were "primitive communist").

Gender inequality in some cases stemmed out (or grew noticeable) when women where pushed completly out of what was generally viewed as the productive sphere of life. For example, Herero Cattle herders have a patriarchal culture while their Dobe Ju neighbors had a less patriarchal culture; in the Dobe Ju culture women had a important role in the sphere of production while in the Herero culture men did all the cattle herding. It was not uncommon for Dobe Ju women to desert their Herero husbands due to their sexism (which is due to their cultural differences).

I basically agree. But I would like to also stress that under primitive communism, the sexual division of labour was not imposed on people, but simply developed freely and naturally. This is the case because queer people like the "two spirits" in Native American tribes were not discriminated against even though they don't fit in with the "genderal norm".

And archaeological evidence shows that the sexual division of labour was far from absolute. For instance the article I quoted above. Also according to ancient Chinese texts, one of the tribes called the Yuezhi (an Indo-European people speaking a Tocharian language) to the west of the Chinese border about 3000 years ago had a warrior queen who was quite fierce. Stereotypically one might say that hunting and fighting in wars were the jobs of men, not women, but in ancient tribes, warrior queens did exist across the globe, from the Yuezhi in Asia to the Celts in Europe, and women did actually play a part in warfare and dangerous hunting. This shows that there was no essential cultural barrier for men to do women's job or for women to do men's job, but statistically there still exists a genderal skew since the majority of men or women do not choose to live like the opposite gender. But my point is that such a trend is simply the result of free choice, not political or cultural coercion.