Sexism [Archive]

Ele'ill

24th May 2010, 22:17

Everyone picks their own rolemodel.

And about 99% of the options for rolemodels are counter productive to how relationships and society need to and can operate

People still hold incredible amounts of choice, especially with the internet out there. There is no excuse to remain ignorant.

Should I pick tubgirl or softer porn? Or maybe just a celebrity with a coke addiction. Maybe a football player that fights dogs or a violent ex-con fugitive hooker.

These images aren't just there- they are flashed and run my 100k marketing teams that want to hook young viewers in.

Do you think that I value men/women as artificial as you are describing? I do not, and most people don't.

The majority of marketing is sex- as an example- because it's bought by viewers in what ever media format it's given. That sex is portrayed in a manner that is sensationalized- graphic- and ultimately out of touch with how real relationships operate.

Why is that? Its easy to blame corporations and the state

They will sell whatever they can by any means necessary. They have learned that humans have certain triggers that they can hook into- sex, violence, addictive substance- the shadows of our society are being used against those trapped there.

I was making "such" posts in the only non-political part of the political forum...

If I were to go to an ethnic forum and post ethnic slurs in the only non ethnic oriented part of the forum would this be ok?

They can choose not to watch the commercials on television

To a lot of people television is amazing to them. They enjoy escaping or whatever reason they watch it. Perhaps it has more of a passive subliminal affect on them- watching murders and sex over and over again.

They also don't inherently know it's wrong especially if they come from a bad family background.

They can choose to ignore billboard ads

:rolleyes:

Robert

24th May 2010, 22:23

If I were to go to an ethnic forum and post ethnic slurs in the only non ethnic oriented part of the forum would this be ok?

No.

But the equivalently offensive post would be one that were misogynistic, right? No one did that in the chatter thread.

Havet

24th May 2010, 22:32

And about 99% of the options for rolemodels are counter productive to how relationships and society need to and can operate

Should I pick tubgirl or softer porn? Or maybe just a celebrity with a coke addiction. Maybe a football player that fights dogs or a violent ex-con fugitive hooker.

These images aren't just there- they are flashed and run my 100k marketing teams that want to hook young viewers in.

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that the only thing that shapes peoples values into sexist beliefs are marketing corporations?

The majority of marketing is sex- as an example- because it's bought by viewers in what ever media format it's given. That sex is portrayed in a manner that is sensationalized- graphic- and ultimately out of touch with how real relationships operate.

How exactly do these ads increase the belief among men that women should be treated as sex-objects? Could you give a concrete example?

They will sell whatever they can by any means necessary. They have learned that humans have certain triggers that they can hook into- sex, violence, addictive substance- the shadows of our society are being used against those trapped there.

And those triggers won't just go away by changing the advertisements. It is a gradual cultural process.

If I were to go to an ethnic forum and post ethnic slurs in the only non ethnic oriented part of the forum would this be ok?

But i was not posting sexist slurs. I was posting a girl dancing in the fifties. I was hoping i'd get insight on the main differences between "tease dancing" back then and now.

Nowadays those types need fake boobed blondes swinging around on a pole. That video was from a more...subtle era. Where nipples and thonged ladies were not something we saw every day.

To a lot of people television is amazing to them. They enjoy escaping or whatever reason they watch it. Perhaps it has more of a passive subliminal affect on them- watching murders and sex over and over again.

To a lot of people hardcore escapist post-apocalyptic games are amazing to them (me included). Would you be so quick to claim that it also affects me subconsciously? And what scientific method would you use to determine that?

Jazzratt

24th May 2010, 22:32

How is it exclusionary? I am not initiating aggression against her, nor am I preventing her from any action. You need to pervert the definition of exclusion a lot in order to consider that I should be demanded to pay equal attention to all things happening on this thread.

Creating an atmosphere that is uncomfortable for someone is a way of excluding them. The onus shouldn't be on them to ignore your patriarchal bullshit but on you to stop being such a prick about the whole thing.

I honestly don't understand what that last sentence meant. In dictionary english please (its not my first language so...)

SUrely by your logic I shouldn't have to because English is the language of the majority here and if you're outside that majority then fuck you. Anyway, what I said was:

there are more heterosexuals in reactionary chatter does that mean you guys can now follow up your borderline sexist/objectivising bullshit with calling any man that doesn't appreciate it a total faggot?

I am not careless about what I post

Then why did you post a second video with similar content after someone had complained about the first? Are you saying you were deliberately being a massive dickhead?

Its perfectly natural for men to be attracted to other men and or other things,

That's not what you implied with what you said. You said men obsess only about women because of some sort of biological imperative. You've pretty much implied that a goodly percentage of men are deviating from their "biological programming" by not obsessing over women.

what I don't understand is why the hell me and others talking about women is somehow "aggressing" against them

For fuck's sake. Have you even tried to read what people are saying to you, you prick? It might come as a surprise to you that women don't necessarily appreciate and can in fact be intimidated by places dominated by men like you. In a vacuum such conversations would be fine but in the social context of male domination such conversations and comments become far more (for want of a better word) "creepy".

They are perfectly ABLE to discuss men here too. Why don't they? There is plenty of space until we reach another 500th post.

Maybe they don't want to? The point isn't that me posting pictures like this*:
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/invisiblev/invisiblev0907/invisiblev090700180/5263126.jpg
will magic away what is essentially you and other men dominating this with your objectification of women.

I always keep my dick from springing out of my trousers when I post in RC. Every single fucking comment i made about girls was not "sexual" in the least. The "sexiest" thing i've said so far is "cute" and "<3". Oh right...i forgot, i'm the douchebag just because I want to share my "facial-symmetry beliefs"/"shoulder-to-waste-ratio" with other people...:rolleyes:

You're doing more than "sharing your "facial-symmetry beliefs"/"shoulder-to-waste[sic]-ratio" with other people". To be honest though it was that shit you were posting beforehand that made me feel a bit dubious about it. I feel a bit of a coward now for not clamping down on it at the time but all your shit about the "fake" women in your area or whatever it was led to some terrible crap if memory serves. Honestly it's not a wonder that the one woman I introduce to this site decided not to post.

If i'm making other members unforcomtable (and i'm NOT breaking forum rules) either they ignore my posts or they change the forum rules. Simple.

You're not breaking the letter of the rules no. The spirit of not being a raging dickhead, however, is something you're working very hard to contravene.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is oppression at its best (even though its only a forum, you guys and gals need to maintain "thought purity", am i right? ... :rolleyes:)

Yes, that's right you're being oppressed. Keeping your god damn patriarchal bullshit to yourself is obviously too fucking much. Honestly I'd rather just kick you in the balls and hope that taught you to be less of a prick about the whole thing, but damned geography prevents me.

Ele'ill

24th May 2010, 22:33

No.

But the equivalently offensive post would be one that were misogynistic, right? No one did that in the chatter thread.

The forum is dedicated to social struggle of those that are oppressed. Women fall into that group without a doubt. Some of the images and video were questionable as to their intent.
This coupled with the other conversations in there made it enough for me to make a post

Jazzratt

24th May 2010, 22:36

No.

But the equivalently offensive post would be one that were misogynistic, right? No one did that in the chatter thread.

You miss the point of WOMEN!!!

"Useful Purpose" has no meaning in the way women are dressed AT ALL!

This and other dog-whistle "aren't women dumb HUR HUR HUR" bullshit was quite prevelant in that thread. I'm ashamed I didn't hand out warning points all around, frankly.

Bud Struggle

24th May 2010, 22:41

This and other dog-whistle "aren't women dumb HUR HUR HUR" bullshit was quite prevelant in that thread. I'm ashamed I didn't hand out warning points all around, frankly.

Come on--useful purpose has very little to the way anyone dresses. What are ties for? Or dresses? There is a lot of sexual play in what everyone does. The point is it shouldn't get out of hand--but it shouldn't be ignored either. Women very often dress provocatively.

I don't think things should be put in anyone's face--but I also don't think (and in the context of my post) it should be ignored.

Havet

24th May 2010, 22:43

This and other dog-whistle "aren't women dumb HUR HUR HUR" bullshit was quite prevelant in that thread. I'm ashamed I didn't hand out warning points all around, frankly.

Interestingly enough here's what i replied to Bud:

I don't agree that there is a point to women just as I don't agree that there are any points to men regarding women. To claim otherwise is to accept a form of sexist slavery.

Ele'ill

24th May 2010, 22:46

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that the only thing that shapes peoples values into sexist beliefs are marketing corporations?

Media has a great influence on people, sure but I think that it generates and can inflame those in broken homes and realistically even those not in broken homes.

How exactly do these ads increase the belief among men that women should be treated as sex-objects? Could you give a concrete example?

The same as troubled women puking every meal out into a toilet to stay thin like their favorite super model. Men feel the need to be muscular as their favorite tv or movie or music icon. Then they adopt the actions of these people as well because they themselves have never had a real life model - it gives them similar reactions as to what they see in the movies or music and they like it. It feels real to them.

And those triggers won't just go away by changing the advertisements. It is a gradual cultural process.

Again, they are not just advertisements. It's an entire system dedicated to hooking the younger generations and keeping them feeding off of toxic nonsense.

But i was not posting sexist slurs. I was posting a girl dancing in the fifties. I was hoping i'd get insight on the main differences between "tease dancing" back then and now.

The same as oogling over a slave in a field. 'Well I wasn't using racial slurs or saying I agree with slavery' but in fact you are by posting the product or the hook itself.

Look at it as marketing propaganda.

Nowadays those types need fake boobed blondes swinging around on a pole. That video was from a more...subtle era. Where nipples and thonged ladies were not something we saw every day.

That video was of that generation's 'fake boobed blondes'

To a lot of people hardcore escapist post-apocalyptic games are amazing to them (me included). Would you be so quick to claim that it also affects me subconsciously? And what scientific method would you use to determine that?

I think that it does. I used to play l4d (and l4d2). . Any media format that replicates violence (as an example) over and over again does desensitize the viewer.

There are various websites, blogs, forums, articles essays, books, book series dedicated to research on the media industry and what it does. I suggest you google for 'scientific facts' as I'm not going to play scientific spokes person with you-

Bud Struggle

24th May 2010, 22:46

Interestingly enough here's what i replied to Bud:

I actually mispoke and should have said how women DRESS. :blushing:

Havet

24th May 2010, 23:01

Creating an atmosphere that is uncomfortable for someone is a way of excluding them. The onus shouldn't be on them to ignore your patriarchal bullshit but on you to stop being such a prick about the whole thing.

So whenever i feel uncomfortable without any specific reason can I just pm you and you'll take care of it?

(joke...)

SUrely by your logic I shouldn't have to because English is the language of the majority here and if you're outside that majority then fuck you. Anyway, what I said was:

That type of english is not the language of the majority here. A quick forum search would show you that. Only in Reactionary Chatter (and OCCASIONALLY) do those funny looking forms of english appear.

there are more heterosexuals in reactionary chatter does that mean you guys can now follow up your borderline sexist/objectivising bullshit with calling any man that doesn't appreciate it a total faggot?

I did not call women any names. In fact, as I recall it, I was pretty much the only person defending them from Robert's and Bud's "wicked and evil" patronizing and patriarchal objectification. Except they were joking about it. Ouch.

Then why did you post a second video with similar content after someone had complained about the first? Are you saying you were deliberately being a massive dickhead?

Again, by your logic, if I complain about Bud's and Robert's discussions about food, can I rely on you to prevent them from discussing that?

I was NOT objectifying or insulting anybody with those dancing videos. Jesus. And if Mari3L felt insulted, then I apologize, but i'm not changing my behaviour until she convinces me by the use of reason/logic/empiric data.

And i was making a point that i liked the video not because of the hypothetical woman objectfying going on (which i didnt even pay attention to to be honest), but to her facial expressions and the music.

That's not what you implied with what you said. You said men obsess only about women because of some sort of biological imperative. You've pretty much implied that a goodly percentage of men are deviating from their "biological programming" by not obsessing over women.

Ok fine, so i fucked up. I have a tendency to generalize in my arguments. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING INCLUDED OTHER SEXUAL TENDENCIES. Can we move on now, please?

For fuck's sake. Have you even tried to read what people are saying to you, you prick? It might come as a surprise to you that women don't necessarily appreciate and can in fact be intimidated by places dominated by men like you. In a vacuum such conversations would be fine but in the social context of male domination such conversations and comments become far more (for want of a better word) "creepy".

What do you mean by "men like you"?

Seriously, i don't give a fuck anymore. I'm just going to rephrain from commenting anything relating to women after this post. This talk about male domination and so on, well i never intended to dominate anybody or to insult anyone. Its better if i just stop talking altogether. I sincerely apologize to everyone. Goodbye.

Maybe they don't want to? The point isn't that me posting pictures like this*:
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/invisiblev/invisiblev0907/invisiblev090700180/5263126.jpg
will magic away what is essentially you and other men dominating this with your objectification of women.

It stops being domination because then its not just men talking about women, is it............:rolleyes:

You're doing more than "sharing your "facial-symmetry beliefs"/"shoulder-to-waste[sic]-ratio" with other people". To be honest though it was that shit you were posting beforehand that made me feel a bit dubious about it. I feel a bit of a coward now for not clamping down on it at the time but all your shit about the "fake" women in your area or whatever it was led to some terrible crap if memory serves. Honestly it's not a wonder that the one woman I introduce to this site decided not to post.

"fake women"? You mean the actual by-products of this whole discussion, the teen girls which, as Mari3L says, by marketing or by bad family atmosphere, become the very thing we are trying to prevent men to think of women??? And i'm bad by trying to explain that they are not some hopeless victims but that they had a choice to prevent that from happening? Ai mamacita...

You're not breaking the letter of the rules no. The spirit of not being a raging dickhead, however, is something you're working very hard to contravene.

whatever

Yes, that's right you're being oppressed. Keeping your god damn patriarchal bullshit to yourself is obviously too fucking much. Honestly I'd rather just kick you in the balls and hope that taught you to be less of a prick about the whole thing, but damned geography prevents me.

First of all, i don't recall having exercised autocratic authority

Second, threatening people with physical force is not very nice

Third, goodbye

Robert

24th May 2010, 23:03

Some of the images and video were questionable as to their intent.

I'm sure you mean Hayen's intent. But since we need to consider context, I think there is a big difference between a video of an adult female dancer, performing voluntarily, and a child or an adult that is performing under some coercion, for example an obligation to a pimp or a stripclub.

What was Betty Page's intent in making the recording?

Posing for theatrically staged fetish pictorials and stag films, Page's vamp looks, blunt bangs, raven hair, sharp lips, pale skin, and dangerous curves wrapped in lingerie (and often less) helped define the modern visual language of sex and kink. After porn, the woman born Betty Mae Page led a religious, often troubled life and rarely allowed anyone to photograph her, ensuring that she remained the "Queen of Curves". But Page was more than a sex bomb. Through bared breasts, riding crops, and ball gags, Bettie radiated an engaging innocence that made her iconic. Though she never graced the cover of Vogue, Page influenced movies, clothing, hair, innumerable fashion spreads and modern sexual culture itself. Men loved Bettie Page. Women loved Bettie Page. Those who celebrate beauty, kink, sex, and style will always love Bettie Page. (NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/arts/12page.html?_r=1&hp))

I'd post a link to that obituary but it has a photo of Betty in a bikini and I don't want to get whacked.

Ele'ill

24th May 2010, 23:18

First of all I didn't PM anybody about it. I handled it just fine on my own. :)

You mean the actual by-products of this whole discussion, the teen girls which, as Mari3L says, by marketing or by bad family atmosphere, become the very thing we are trying to prevent men to think of women??? And i'm bad by trying to explain that they are not some hopeless victims but that they had a choice to prevent that from happening?

Example:
Heterosexual men shouldn't think of women as sexual objects.

What media influence does is breed physical replication of what's seen. Hence the anorexic female trying to attain someone else's miserable body image.

Jazzratt

24th May 2010, 23:41

So whenever i feel uncomfortable without any specific reason can I just pm you and you'll take care of it?

As Mari3L pointed out she didn't PM me shit.

I did not call women any names.

You must be so proud of yourself.

Again, by your logic, if I complain about Bud's and Robert's discussions about food, can I rely on you to prevent them from discussing that?

Food isn't a traditionally oppressed and objectified group in society. Try again moron.

I was NOT objectifying or insulting anybody with those dancing videos. Jesus. And if Mari3L felt insulted, then I apologize, but i'm not changing my behaviour until she convinces me by the use of reason/logic/empiric data.

Don't play silly buggers. She's used reason enough to satisfy most people who aren't unreconstructed lackwits.

And i was making a point that i liked the video not because of the hypothetical woman objectfying going on (which i didnt even pay attention to to be honest), but to her facial expressions and the music.

Her "facial expressions"? Seriosuly? Either you've genuinely missed the point of burlesque and are charmingly naive or you're clutching at straws after being called out. I'm sorry but you've never given me any reason to give you the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances.

What do you mean by "men like you"?

Neardathal lackwits.

Seriously, i don't give a fuck anymore. I'm just going to rephrain from commenting anything relating to women after this post. This talk about male domination and so on, well i never intended to dominate anybody or to insult anyone. Its better if i just stop talking altogether. I sincerely apologize to everyone. Goodbye.

I hope you don't sound this snotty when radical women call you out on your behaviour in whatever political groups you're involved in.

It stops being domination because then its not just men talking about women, is it............:rolleyes:

And if I light a match in a dark room it stops being dark.

First of all, i don't recall having exercised autocratic authority

I didn't call you an autocrat.

Second, threatening people with physical force is not very nice

To be a threat I would have to be capable of enacting it surely? I can't threaten you, I don't know you from adam. I might want to kick you in the bollocks but I've never met you and never will.

Third, goodbye

Toodle-pip.

Meridian

25th May 2010, 00:02

The forum is dedicated to social struggle of those that are oppressed. Women fall into that group without a doubt.
I would argue that this kind of generalization is actually detrimental to any serious anti-sexist movement. Not all women are oppressed. Being a woman doesn't make you oppressed.

Ele'ill

25th May 2010, 00:07

I would argue that this kind of generalization is actually detrimental to any serious anti-sexist movement. Not all women are oppressed. Being a woman doesn't make you oppressed.

I'm interested in what your reasoning is, btw, but my first thought was 'being African American doesn't make you oppressed' doesn't seem to work either and it's similar.

Speaking from a first world perspective I think that being a woman presents one with many struggles against every day bombardment from media imagery- perhaps more so than men.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2010, 00:18

Speaking from a first world perspective I think that being a woman presents one with many struggles against every day bombardment from media imagery- perhaps more so than men.

Trust me on this: speaking from a middle aged slightly paunchy position--I really don't need to see pictures of muscular 22 year old guys with perfect hair cuts and sex pack abs either.

We should have a moratorium on all this kid of thing. :)

Meridian

25th May 2010, 00:26

Ele'ill

25th May 2010, 00:34

But there is a distinction between there being cases where one clearly could point to women being victims as a result of being female, and the general statement that 'women' are oppressed.

If women are habitually oppressed you could say women, as a group, are oppressed.

Failure to realize this distinction leads, directly or indirectly, to multiple issues:
- the focus on gender in our study of oppression and society structure in general (as opposed to, for example, economical classes)

If women are targeted for oppression under various economic classes for the same reason it doesn't matter.

- the stereotyping of women as victims

What if they're the victim of habitual injustice?

- the stereotyping of men as not-victims
- the sense that women are not oppressors
- and finally, the idea that all women are oppressed (which is not true)

I never claimed that men were not oppressed as I pointed out a couple of examples- I'm also not saying you're accusing ME of leaving that out.

Of course there will be groups of the oppressed that do the oppressing.

All, individual women, are not oppressed but culture can create a system where the only thing missing from the oppression is the woman, and once introduced it becomes oppression.

Blake's Baby

25th May 2010, 00:47

I'm interested in what your reasoning is, btw, but my first thought was 'being African American doesn't make you oppressed' doesn't seem to work either and it's similar.

Speaking from a first world perspective I think that being a woman presents one with many struggles against every day bombardment from media imagery- perhaps more so than men.

I think the reasoning is that there are women in the world who are in positions of power. And there are black people in the world (even in America) in positions of power. So being black, and being a woman, and even being a black woman, do not necessarily mean that you cannot acheive a position of power, though I'm sure we all agree that it makes things much more difficult.

So women while they may be oppressed in general are not oppressed in every instance (or the oppression they experience is not enough to prevent them acheiving a measure of power). Likewise, black people may be oppressed in general, but not in every case. I'm not arguing against the reality of the oppression of women or black people in western socities here, just saying that oppression is not consistent.

Are 'men' as a category not oppressed? I would argue they are. Most men are poor. Most white people are poor. The poor are an oppressed group in society, so most white men are included in that group. Are white men especially disadvantaged over other groups in society? Not in Europe and the USA; but they are still oppressed.

There are no poor people in positions of power, male or female, black or white; therefore, class position is a more reliable guide to whether or not someone is oppressed than ethnicity or sex. While there are certain groups among the poor that are oppressed more than others - poor blacks have to deal both with poverty and racism, poor black women have to deal with poverty, racism and sexism - categories of oppression based on race and sex (and gender) can be overcome by... getting rich. This is why the statement 'not all women are oppressed' I think.

My own belief is that feminism failed to go beyonds the values of the 'middle class' for the simple reason that its leaders and main animators were middle class themselves. Particualrism always fails even when there are real and genuine greivances that are over and above the 'norms' of class society. Sexism cannot be done away with outside of the entire emancipation of humanity of all races, sexes and genders. The idea of 'equality with men' is a meaningless concept when 'men' have no equality with 'men'. Poor men under capitalism will all suffer; poor whites under capitalism will always suffer; it makes little sense for 'women' to demand equality with these men, or black people to demand equality with these white people.

It makes an awful lot of sense for the poor to demand the abolition of the rich.

Ele'ill

25th May 2010, 00:57

Women and say African Americans in positions of power are still oppressed and discriminated against.

Especially in the case of this thread and what prompted it- women and men can be in power and still be oppressed by media imagery- but this conversation was primarily about women and hayenmill's posts in the chitchat area.

Meridian

25th May 2010, 02:33

Women and say African Americans in positions of power are still oppressed and discriminated against.
Most likely, in certain situations. However, if they are capitalists they are, per definition, oppressive of other people. Likewise, it doesn't follow from being a women that you are oppressed, nor from being an African American, but it follows from being a worker.

Especially in the case of this thread and what prompted it- women and men can be in power and still be oppressed by media imagery- but this conversation was primarily about women and hayenmill's posts in the chitchat area.
I think it would be helpful if we were more strict with how we used the term 'oppression'. You can't be oppressed by anything that isn't human, since oppressing is a human ability. So women or men can not be oppressed by imagery, but possibly by those who are behind the imagery.

Anyways, it was not my intention to derail the thread (if I did). My apologies.

Skooma Addict

25th May 2010, 04:17

Most likely, in certain situations. However, if they are capitalists they are, per definition, oppressive of other people. Likewise, it doesn't follow from being a women that you are oppressed, nor from being an African American, but it follows from being a worker.No it doesn't. When I go to work, I am not being oppressed.

To say that women are oppressed because they are "objectified" by some media outlets is to completely misuse the word "oppression." Women in America at least generally have the same rights as men, and in some cases the law favors them over men. You guys need to stop misusing words.

I don't even see what the problem is with showing attractive women on television commercials or in magazines (or whatever it is you guys claim is so evil and oppressive).

RGacky3

25th May 2010, 10:24

Women in popular culture are only as objectified as sex objects as plumbers are objectified as plumbing objects, there are different types of "sexism."

one comes from the core concept that women should not be able to do certain things, they they are to be subject to men, that sort of sexism in most of western culture is dying out,

the second is just Capitalism, the market, keep in mind the market does not take care of social need or whats best for society, it only takes care of the profit motive, the short term competative market which is controlled by the rich.

The third is not sexism at all, just sexual attraction, which is normal and healthy.

Now am I ok with sex being sold to children on TV, being used to entice, especially young vulnurable people, to by stuff, playing on insecurities and the such? No, not in the least, however these are natural outcomes of the market place, which goes to show that Capitalism is essencially anti-family, the marketplace does'nt care about family values, I personally find it discusting, but there are many things about capitalism that are, just to blame in on sexism is oversimplifying it, and is just wrong.

What if they're the victim of habitual injustice?

being used in the market place is not anymore injust then what men have to go through, Capitalists are just exploiting natural phenomenons, such as sexual attraction, the same way they exploit male physical strength.

Example:
Heterosexual men shouldn't think of women as sexual objects.

What media influence does is breed physical replication of what's seen. Hence the anorexic female trying to attain someone else's miserable body image.

heres where I have issue, if you go to a club, and look for someone to sleep with, everyone there is a sex object, whether your a man or a woman. Now I agree with you that media images are detrimental to female self esteem, but thats not sexism, thats the market place, Capitalists are selling and image that they think will make them money.

Also you know what there is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to be attractive to men, the same vise versa, there is also nothing wrong with men finding certain women attractive rather than others, sex is'nt wrong. Capitalists WILL use it though because it makes them money, put the blame where it belongs, this is the natural market, not due to some innate sexism. Trying to get the market place to change and become moral is hopeless, and blaiming natural sexual attraction is rediculous, Capitalism is the problem here.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2010, 12:17

So what did we decide here? Is sex still going to be dirty after the Revolution? :D

I really don't think you can talk about "women" in general very easily. "A" woman can be objectified against her will, but I'm not sure about ALL women. Is there anything wrong with Betty Page (for example) being objecified in that video? I don't think so if it was something she consented to and was paid for doing--and so much better if she was doing it for herself. She wasn't exploiting anyone. It is no difference than someone doing any other sort of "work" for pay. I guess in Marxist terms she is either being exploited as a worker or she isn't. And if she isn't, who elses business is it?

If men want to watch and Miss Page is willing to perform--is there problem with that? And that brings us to the question of Mari3L (with all due respect to Mrai3L)--and all other women. I don't really see how Miss Page dancing and Hayenmill and others enjoying the dancing is any of her business in any political way.

Now out of politeness to Mari3L I think it would be better not to show those kinds of videos--but I don't see not doing it for any POLITICAL reasons.

eyedrop

25th May 2010, 12:48

Delete, double post

eyedrop

25th May 2010, 12:49

If men want to watch and Miss Page is willing to perform--is there problem with that? And that brings us to the question of Mari3L (with all due respect to Mrai3L)--and all other women. I don't really see how Miss Page dancing and Hayenmill and others enjoying the dancing is any of her business in any political way.

The problem as I see it isn't really with a particular case, but rather how images of half naked women dominates so much our cultural spheres. We shouldn't need to create our own cultural areas free of images of sexualised women. I got no problems with sexualised women, but I don't need to see it on every bill board all over town.

Imagine a gay pride parade following you (as a straight man) around everywhere.

And then you have the problem that a large percentage of women in media are there purely as sex objects, while media an is a large part of the visible culture people are exposed too.

But market forces decreed that thus it should be, so were stuck with it for now.

So what did we decide here? Is sex still going to be dirty after the Revolution? :D Sure, non-dirty sex aren't very fun now is it?

Robert

25th May 2010, 15:13

Seems to me that if it's not okay to openly express frank admiration for a Betty Page video in "public", like here on the board, because it's akin to racism or other prejudicial language indicative of oppression, then it wouldn't even be okay to say so in private, like in PM's.

I can't get there from here. Telling a racist joke in private is not anything like expressing to a friend, in private, frank sexual attraction to another.

That said, I have to admit that if a girl is present when two guys are ogling another girl, and the first girl says "cut it out, guys," for whatever reason, I think it's respectful to change the subject. But that's bourgeois chivalry at work more than solidarity with an oppressed class.

Chalk one up to my class. ¡Vive la bourgeoisie!

eyedrop

25th May 2010, 15:20

Robert

25th May 2010, 15:24

Fine. I agree.

What about here on the board?

What about another video on the chatter thread? Would you order it deleted if you were a moderator?

For me it's a close call, but not for reasons political.

eyedrop

25th May 2010, 16:33

What about here on the board?
The board should generally be free of that. Some lapses from time to time is fine. Sometimes I get the feeling that this forum is worse than most forums I frequent, probably due to there being a large percentage of teenage boys here.

What about another video on the chatter thread? Would you order it deleted if you were a moderator? I would follow the board guidelines, if it were up to me I would consider giving the poster a temp ban, for being trolling. (Posting just to irritate the person who requested that they didn't want the chatter tread to revolve around sexualised videos.)

Meridian

25th May 2010, 18:00

No it doesn't. When I go to work, I am not being oppressed.
If you are a worker and not a capitalist, yes you are. Your payment will always be less than the value of your labor.

Skooma Addict

25th May 2010, 18:18

If you are a worker and not a capitalist, yes you are. Your payment will always be less than the value of your labor.

I am a worker who voluntarily signed a mutually beneficial contract with an employer. I fully agree with all of the terms of my work. I am not being exploited regardless of what anyone says.

GreenCommunism

25th May 2010, 19:07

Bud Struggle

25th May 2010, 19:41

Chalk one up to my class. ¡Vive la bourgeoisie!

Exactly right (as always) Comrade.

We cannot of course, post pics of naked women on RevLeft because of Eidelweiss's property rights enforced by his (unpaid) employees the Admins and the Mods.

But there is no POLITICAL reason not to post pics of naked women on RevLeft.

And the reason we shouldn't not post pics of naked womem on RevLeft is because of good old fashioned Bourgeoisie good manners.

Sigh, before we know it RevLet stock will be traded on the New York Stock exchange. :D

Ele'ill

25th May 2010, 20:18

Most likely, in certain situations. However, if they are capitalists they are, per definition, oppressive of other people. Likewise, it doesn't follow from being a women that you are oppressed, nor from being an African American, but it follows from being a worker.

If the person belongs to a group that is discriminated against regardless of class or power held then they are a group that is oppressed. I understand there are different levels of it.

I think it would be helpful if we were more strict with how we used the term 'oppression'. You can't be oppressed by anything that isn't human, since oppressing is a human ability. So women or men can not be oppressed by imagery, but possibly by those who are behind the imagery.

People are obviously oppressed only by other people but how? Let me tell you again- media imagery driven by corporate market whores.

Would you hold a sign up at a rally that said "NAFTA doesn't oppress Mexicans, people do." ?

"It isn't the WTO, it's the people that are involved with it."

I get what you're saying but give the semantics a rest.

Ele'ill

25th May 2010, 20:33

Blake's Baby

25th May 2010, 21:14

I am a worker who voluntarily signed a mutually beneficial contract with an employer. I fully agree with all of the terms of my work. I am not being exploited regardless of what anyone says.

Yes you are, you just agree to it being exploited. That's not our problem, nor does it remove the fact of your exploitation. The fact that you make $100 for your bosses every day but they only give you $25 is your problem.

Ele'ill

25th May 2010, 21:25

I am a worker who voluntarily signed a mutually beneficial contract with an employer. I fully agree with all of the terms of my work. I am not being exploited regardless of what anyone says.

Voluntarily because every contract you could possibly sign is the same and shorts the worker protection from exploitation. You fully agree to all the terms of your work because you don't have a choice- you need a job badly and the employer knows this. This is the first exploitation and you haven't even worked a day yet.

Bud Struggle

25th May 2010, 23:03

Here's an interesting article. A year or so old, but he's not a guy that would disrespect women....

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/02/03/the-man-i-want-my-daughter-to-date/

Not that it matters--but I'm trying to raise my daughters as something like that. They're girls, of course, and Catholic--but in a similar vein.

RGacky3

26th May 2010, 10:34

Men shouldn't allow (if this forum had a women's section) women to post pictures, videos or comments about men in such a fashion either. What it does is polarize gender based on sexual relations and what I personally feel is learned appreciation for a sexual gender preference via media influence.

Whats wrong with showing women or men as sexual beings? (If its appropriate to the forum), the media did'nt create sexual attraction, it exploits it, there is nothing wrong with sexual attraction, it does'nt polarize gender at all.

is because of good old fashioned Bourgeoisie good manners.

Since when is good manners something bourgeoisie???

Ele'ill

26th May 2010, 18:05

Whats wrong with showing women or men as sexual beings? (If its appropriate to the forum), the media did'nt create sexual attraction, it exploits it, there is nothing wrong with sexual attraction, it does'nt polarize gender at all.

Humans are sexual and social creatures. I have zero tolerance for postings of video and pictures that depict a false reality- that the corporate market place created and used to exploit various emotions and hook people into a product (or way of thinking). Yes, the chitchat thread is for offtopic things but I think we can manage to not post sexually polarizing images or opinions especially considering this is a political forum. I didn't think it was much to ask.

My reasoning for speaking out in the chitchat thread was because it was becoming the only thing talked about and honestly none of the stuff in there by itself warranted a response (yet)- but all of it together, in the manner it was posted and the intent behind the postings- made it necessary in my opinion to say something.

My goal was to bring it to the attention of the people posting the stuff in there- to handle it directly at the source in the thread that it was happening. It created more of a conversation than I had anticipated so I created a separate thread in order to not clog up the freshly created chitchat thread.

If you want to take a look at the old chitchat thread it's still around and I asked very quickly, several times, for it to quiet down and become a little desexalized from the current trend.

Ele'ill

27th May 2010, 01:37

I felt this was important as well-

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2010, 01:45

I am a worker who voluntarily signed a mutually beneficial contract with an employer. I fully agree with all of the terms of my work. I am not being exploited regardless of what anyone says.

ok, you are hunky dory so that justifies the entire institution of paid slavery. Awesome.

You do realise that your conditions dont necessarilly apply to others right? I personally despise my job. The only reason i do it is because there is literally fuck all else. I am being exploited because ive been co-erced into accepting the only alternative to poverty and hunger (which isnt a meaningful choice before you start).

Oh, but why should i complain about my lot. Good luck convincing mothers in thailand and the philippines working for fuck all in intensive factories whose own children dont recognise them because theyve been estranged for so long.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2010, 01:48

And the reason we shouldn't not post pics of naked womem on RevLeft is because of good old fashioned Bourgeoisie good manners.

. :D

Are these the same ''good old fashioned Bourgeoisie good manners'' that indulge in wife swapping and high profile prostitutes?

Che a chara

27th May 2010, 01:58

Whatever you give a woman, she will make it greater..

If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby.

If you give her a house, she'll give you a home.

If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal.

If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart.

She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her.

So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit.

Robert

27th May 2010, 02:39

Are these the same ''good old fashioned Bourgeoisie good manners'' that indulge in wife swapping and high profile prostitutes?

I guess you're just having fun there, but any bourgeois who engages in either pays a heavy price sooner or later. He may also go to Hell, but I don't really know.

Not yet anyway. :D

Skooma Addict

27th May 2010, 03:03

you are forced to starvation or a miserable life on welfare and food stamps if you do not work. i may be exagerating but if you were a prostitute and had a deal with a pimp it wouldn't be no different according to your argument.

Well I am not forced into starvation if I don't work. I would really take an effort on my part to starve to death. But yes, if you don't work, you can live on welfare. I assume you wouldn't propose a social system where people who work are given the same benefits as those who don't work. That would certainly have terrible consequences. Also, the fact that people starve if they don't work is due to scarcity and a fact of nature. Although this threat has been mitigated thanks to capitalism.

Also, what I said wouldn't be any different as long as the prostitute has the same political beliefs as me.

Yes you are, you just agree to it being exploited. That's not our problem, nor does it remove the fact of your exploitation. The fact that you make $100 for your bosses every day but they only give you $25 is your problem. I don't make 25 dollars for every 100 I make for my boss. The fact that my boss receives a portion of my work is of no concern to me, so it is not my problem. In fact my productivity would be far lower were it not for my boss.

Voluntarily because every contract you could possibly sign is the same and shorts the worker protection from exploitation. You fully agree to all the terms of your work because you don't have a choice- you need a job badly and the employer knows this. This is the first exploitation and you haven't even worked a day yet.There are a variety of contracts, and they are not all the same. The fact that the worker is always being exploited is what is being contested, so you are assuming what you have to prove.

Che a chara

27th May 2010, 03:19

Skooma, what about your working hours ? what about pay cuts ? both are dictated under capitalism. would you not prefer to work less hours and not receive a pay cut ?

Are you saying productivity depends on having a boss ?

Ele'ill

27th May 2010, 03:36

There are a variety of contracts, and they are not all the same. The fact that the worker is always being exploited is what is being contested, so you are assuming what you have to prove.

Let's focus on one type of industry at a time.

Retail- Every case that I have ever seen with retail involves the workers signing of their right to a flexible weekly schedule and flexible time of day. But let's pretend this is an annoyance and not impairing a human from living free. (:rolleyes:)

- The right for the company to terminate employment if the employee speaks with a union rep- and the right to suspend employment to engage in an 'investigation' if union activity is suspected. (This means no pay for an extended period of time.)

There was a situation at a retail chain where the store was posting anti free choice act literature and posters around the store even in light of the chain's policy regarding employees posting of political or social literature. This states that because you work for this corporation you reject the idea of better working conditions at the in-house brand manufacturing plants down south of the border and elsewhere.

- You agree, in the event of an environmental catastrophe, to remain silent if approached by media. You also agree to remain silent in light of minor municipal ordinance violations and to report or direct individuals to the store manager.

-A big one is 'agree to complete your duties according to your job description and any other tasks you are assigned to do.'

A local big-box chain decided to fire third party janitorial services and assign regular employees to do the job (without OSHA reg protection for a period of time). The reasoning was 'the economy'- yet the company was opening up another store about four miles down the road (signed land agreements) and was paying for a new paint job on the current store.

The employees were assigned by department but since the low level managers ran three departments at a time they had favorites and the restrooms would go uncleaned for a week or more- skipping over the favored departments. It broke down to the associates that were unhappy with the work environment being assigned the duty as punishment. There were lawsuits filed.

There was an instance at another company where employees were asked to repair electrical.

Another where they were told to fix a leak in the roof.

'well the economy is bad' yet these companies are making more in the 'recession' than they did beforehand. How do they do it? Labor Exploitation

Ele'ill

27th May 2010, 03:43

The fact that I have to work is exploitation. The fact that I have to support worker's rights violations is exploitation. The idea that I cannot organize a body of workers to simply TALK about change with our without company reps is a fucking crime.

The idea that employees should be 'loyal to their companies' is to protect capital flow from barriers like justice and organized compassion on an international level.

synthesis

27th May 2010, 09:33

Men shouldn't allow (if this forum had a women's section) women to post pictures, videos or comments about men in such a fashion either. What it does is polarize gender based on sexual relations and what I personally feel is learned appreciation for a sexual gender preference via media influence.

I'm not so sure about this whole "pansexual philosophy." Whenever I have encountered one of its proponents, it seems analogous to how Freud assumed that every man wants to fuck his own mother simply because he wanted to fuck his own mother.

So you think sexual preference is socially constructed? I just don't know if that's the case. We had sexual preferences long before we had anything that could reasonably be called "media." You seem to suggest that appreciating the aesthetics of the human form should be an activity restricted to homosexuals - am I wrong?

RGacky3

27th May 2010, 12:58

I guess you're just having fun there, but any bourgeois who engages in either pays a heavy price sooner or later. He may also go to Hell, but I don't really know.

Not yet anyway

He's just pointing out the idea that bourgeoisie decency or courtisy is a myth and extreamly bigoted.

synthesis

27th May 2010, 21:52

also:

The fact that I have to work is exploitation.

Sorry to break it to you, but you're gonna have to work under socialism, too.

The reasoning was 'the economy'- yet the company was opening up another store about four miles down the road (signed land agreements) and was paying for a new paint job on the current store.

"The economy is bad" is a phrase that is almost only ever used as justification. It rarely corresponds with reality except as a result of people using it to justify other actions.

Ele'ill

27th May 2010, 22:06

also:

Sorry to break it to you, but you're gonna have to work under socialism, too.

I meant under the conditions I listed.

"The economy is bad" is a phrase that is almost only ever used as justification. It rarely corresponds with reality except as a result of people using it to justify other actions.

I think this is what I said.

Ele'ill

27th May 2010, 22:09

I'm not so sure about this whole "pansexual philosophy." Whenever I have encountered one of its proponents, it seems analogous to how Freud assumed that every man wants to fuck his own mother simply because he wanted to fuck his own mother.

I don't have a 'pansexual philosophy.

So you think sexual preference is socially constructed? I just don't know if that's the case. We had sexual preferences long before we had anything that could reasonably be called "media." You seem to suggest that appreciating the aesthetics of the human form should be an activity restricted to homosexuals - am I wrong?

Never said this nor suggested it. You greatly misunderstood my posts. My error perhaps.

I think that sexual preference is natural. I think the media hooks into whatever sexual preference a person may have, be it homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality, and uses this to market products and ideas through ultra-sensationalized imagery.

synthesis

27th May 2010, 22:12

I think this is what I said.

Yeah, that wasn't a rebuke to you - I was simply using your statement to justify (heh) my increasing suspicions that whatever it is we call "the economy" is entirely mythological - a vast myth which, however, can have as much power as that which people give to it.

synthesis

27th May 2010, 22:18

I don't have a 'pansexual philosophy.

That would be the implication of "sexual gender preference" being "learned through the media." I could very well be taking this out of context, however.

Never said this nor suggested it. You greatly misunderstood my posts. My error perhaps.

Again, that would be the implication of arguing against what they did by asserting that their actions "polarize gender relations."

I think that sexual preference is natural. I think the media hooks into whatever sexual preference a person may have, be it homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality, and uses this to market products and ideas through ultra-sensationalized imagery.

Fair enough. I would respond that society as a whole "hooks into whatever sexual preference a person may have" and that the media simply exploits this differentiation by defining them as "target demographics."

Ele'ill

27th May 2010, 22:29

That would be the implication of "sexual gender preference" being "learned through the media." I could very well be taking this out of context, however.

Yeah, gender preference isn't learned. Behavior surrounding preference would be.

Again, that would be the implication of arguing against what they did by asserting that their actions "polarize gender relations."

As I stated multiple times in this thread and two others- it had to do with the amount of stuff and the conversation surrounding it. Not just one video or one comment.

The thread turned womanizing- it wasn't terrible but I didn't want to take the chance that it would get to that point- thus I made a quick post and hayenmill decided to reply.

Fair enough. I would respond that society as a whole "hooks into whatever sexual preference a person may have" and that the media simply exploits this differentiation by defining them as "target demographics."

The issues I'm thinking of relate to media hooking into preference and displaying sensational behavior surrounding it- society has its biases too and the media of course will hook that as well.

Obrero Rebelde

27th May 2010, 22:53

MARI3L said: I think that sexual preference is natural. I think the media hooks into whatever sexual preference a person may have, be it homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality, and uses this to market products and ideas through ultra-sensationalized imagery.

Sexual PREFERENCE?

I'm a queer bisexual -- NOT BY PREFERENCE BUT BY NATURE. I never had a choice in the matter.

A queer activist I definitely am BY CHOICE, and not that I'd prefer to be, but that I have no other choice except to quietly suffer the consequences of the conditions of life around me or organize to change those conditions.

Dammit, quit saying SEXUAL PREFERENCE.

Sexual preference to ME is that I prefer men to go down on me over women going down on me, and that I prefer the missionary position with women over riding a man's back.

We are sexually ORIENTED as hetero, homo, bi, or poly. It has nothing at all to do with "preference," but with NATURE.

Bud Struggle

27th May 2010, 23:01

For the first time on RevLeft Mari3L's got someone to listen to her and she's enjoying her 15 mins of fame. Enjoy.

Olaf's next. :D

Ele'ill

27th May 2010, 23:05

Sexual PREFERENCE?

I'm a queer bisexual -- NOT BY PREFERENCE BUT BY NATURE. I never had a choice in the matter.

This was a word definition fuck up on my part.

By using the word preference I was trying to say exactly what you just said. I don't think otherwise. Apparently preference strongly suggests the act of choice and I didn't realize this until you posted and I looked up the word on merriam webster online.

I was basically thinking preference is controlled by 'nature'- and your preference or choice would be to engage in whatever felt right.

synthesis

27th May 2010, 23:32

I'm a queer bisexual -- NOT BY PREFERENCE BUT BY NATURE. I never had a choice in the matter.I don't really see the contradiction. Preferences result from orientation, which results from "nature."

"Nature," of course, is an ill-defined term, but here we all know what it means, and it serves well enough to note that choice does not play a role in orientation.

Bud Struggle

27th May 2010, 23:42

I don't really see the contradiction. Preferences result from orientation, which results from "nature."

"Nature," of course, is an ill-defined term, but here we all know what it means, and it serves well enough to note that choice does not play a role in orientation.

"Ouch," According to Necro and his theory that there is no such thing as "human nature"--ALL nature is learned.

So all you gays--just STOP IT!

:D

Obrero Rebelde

27th May 2010, 23:49

" . . . there is no such thing as 'human nature' --ALL nature is learned."

So who taught me that men give better head than women?
-- Men did, after women failed in competition.

___________

Okay, I get it. I learned to be oriented towards men for getting head, and to women, for getting laid. :lol:

Obrero Rebelde

28th May 2010, 00:00

There are no poor people in positions of power, male or female, black or white; therefore, class position is a more reliable guide to whether or not someone is oppressed than ethnicity or sex. While there are certain groups among the poor that are oppressed more than others - poor blacks have to deal both with poverty and racism, poor black women have to deal with poverty, racism and sexism - categories of oppression based on race and sex (and gender) can be overcome by... getting rich. This is why the statement 'not all women are oppressed' I think.

My own belief is that feminism failed to go beyonds the values of the 'middle class' for the simple reason that its leaders and main animators were middle class themselves. Particualrism always fails even when there are real and genuine greivances that are over and above the 'norms' of class society. Sexism cannot be done away with outside of the entire emancipation of humanity of all races, sexes and genders. The idea of 'equality with men' is a meaningless concept when 'men' have no equality with 'men'. Poor men under capitalism will all suffer; poor whites under capitalism will always suffer; it makes little sense for 'women' to demand equality with these men, or black people to demand equality with these white people.

It makes an awful lot of sense for the poor to demand the abolition of the rich.

You've left out the factor of WHITE SUPREMACY and WHITE SKIN PRIVILEGE.

Racism is not just discrimination against or hatred or dislike of people of color, but the special "All-American" kind of capitalist exploitation and oppression of workers BASED ON NON-WHITENESS and where white workers as well get to participate in enjoying white skin privilege and in exploiting and oppressing workers of color.

I had thought most seriously (revolutionary) Left folks already had this at the center of their consciousness.

Apparently not.

No wonder the communist movement in this country is so fucked up.

Skooma Addict

28th May 2010, 00:39

Let's focus on one type of industry at a time.

Retail- Every case that I have ever seen with retail involves the workers signing of their right to a flexible weekly schedule and flexible time of day. But let's pretend this is an annoyance and not impairing a human from living free. (:rolleyes:)

- The right for the company to terminate employment if the employee speaks with a union rep- and the right to suspend employment to engage in an 'investigation' if union activity is suspected. (This means no pay for an extended period of time.)

There was a situation at a retail chain where the store was posting anti free choice act literature and posters around the store even in light of the chain's policy regarding employees posting of political or social literature. This states that because you work for this corporation you reject the idea of better working conditions at the in-house brand manufacturing plants down south of the border and elsewhere.

- You agree, in the event of an environmental catastrophe, to remain silent if approached by media. You also agree to remain silent in light of minor municipal ordinance violations and to report or direct individuals to the store manager.

-A big one is 'agree to complete your duties according to your job description and any other tasks you are assigned to do.'

A local big-box chain decided to fire third party janitorial services and assign regular employees to do the job (without OSHA reg protection for a period of time). The reasoning was 'the economy'- yet the company was opening up another store about four miles down the road (signed land agreements) and was paying for a new paint job on the current store.

The employees were assigned by department but since the low level managers ran three departments at a time they had favorites and the restrooms would go uncleaned for a week or more- skipping over the favored departments. It broke down to the associates that were unhappy with the work environment being assigned the duty as punishment. There were lawsuits filed.

There was an instance at another company where employees were asked to repair electrical.

Another where they were told to fix a leak in the roof.

'well the economy is bad' yet these companies are making more in the 'recession' than they did beforehand. How do they do it? Labor Exploitation

Yet not all contracts in retail even contain all of those conditions. But obviously contracts in each industry will be standardized to some extent. But anyways, this misses the whole point, since a worker could fully and strongly agree with all of these terms. To say that such a worker is being exploited makes no sense. The worker agrees with private property, and he is very happy with the contract which he signed. To say that such a worker is being exploited is insane.

The fact is that exploitation does not necessarily follow from being a worker.

Skooma, what about your working hours ? what about pay cuts ? both are dictated under capitalism. would you not prefer to work less hours and not receive a pay cut ?

Are you saying productivity depends on having a boss ? Would I prefer to work less hours and earn the same amount of money per week as I do now? Sure, why not.

Productivity does not depend on having a boss. It is not like it is impossible to be productive without a boss. So no, that is not what I am saying. However, were it not for my boss, my productivity would be lower.

synthesis

28th May 2010, 01:46

"Ouch," According to Necro and his theory that there is no such thing as "human nature"--ALL nature is learned.

So all you gays--just STOP IT!

:D

As usual, the answer is somewhere in between. We aren't philosophical blank slates - we are animals, after all, not abstractions - but any categorical statement about human nature is bound to, at the very least, have so many exceptions that it will prove worthless when attempting to extract any real value from it.

RGacky3

28th May 2010, 09:24

When it comes to Heterosexual vrs Homosexual there are tons of factors that play into it and its much to complicated to simply say nature or nurture, it could be some hormonal thing in the womb, it could be genetic, it could be based on early sexual experiences which generally end up deciding much, it could be a mixture of many many things, the point is it really does'nt matter.

As far as heterosexual attraction, there are biological reasons that a 7/10 waist/hip ratio is generally more attractive as are fuller breasts and ass and high full cheaks and full lips, there is also a biologocal reason that man are much more visual in their sexual attraction than women (which is why sexual marketing works better on men), as far as I'm concerned showing a picture in the chit chat section of a woman you find attractive should'nt be different than talking about personality characteristics in women you find attractive, they are all natural phenomenon, the fact is though one is easily exploited by capitalists the other is not.

Robert

28th May 2010, 13:44

oops

Robert

28th May 2010, 13:45

there are biological reasons that a 7/10 waist/hip ratio is generally more attractive as are fuller breasts and ass and high full cheaks and full lips

Am I the only one who's turned on here?

Hot post, Gack. :thumbup1:

Bud Struggle

28th May 2010, 15:01

^^^ Wow you were so excieted you had to say it twice! :D

[Edit] I'm playing hookey from work and watching "Legend of the Lost" (1957) with (a young) Sophia Loren and she fits Gack's discription pretty well.

Ele'ill

28th May 2010, 17:59

Yet not all contracts in retail even contain all of those conditions. But obviously contracts in each industry will be standardized to some extent.

Yes, they do.

But anyways, this misses the whole point, since a worker could fully and strongly agree with all of these terms. To say that such a worker is being exploited makes no sense.

The point wasn't that all workers disagree with those contract terms it was that all of those contract terms exploit worker's rights. If the worker wants to give up those rights then they will- it just means they're willingly being exploited.

The worker agrees with private property, and he is very happy with the contract which he signed. To say that such a worker is being exploited is insane.

From my experience it means the worker doesn't understand how certain mechanisms of exploitation work.

Productivity does not depend on having a boss.

I agree. I know of many people involved in co-ops and collectives.

However, were it not for my boss, my productivity would be lower.

I think some people need another human present to give direction while handling certain tasks. I don't think the person is a 'power-leader' but perhaps someone with a lot of experience. Perhaps your boss is a leader through teaching and organizational skills rather than from a strictly top-down hierarchical position of power.

You are lucky and part of a group of few.

RGacky3

31st May 2010, 14:08

Am I the only one who's turned on here?

Hot post, Gack. :thumbup1:

You REALLY need to get laid my friend.

Bud Struggle

31st May 2010, 15:00

You REALLY need to get laid my friend.

Don't we all. :)

Robert

31st May 2010, 15:03

You REALLY need to get laid my friend.

Workin' on it, comrade! Good advice as usual.

Bud Struggle

31st May 2010, 15:52

Workin' on it, comrade! Good advice as usual.

Can't wait for the Revolution!

Blake's Baby

31st May 2010, 18:33

You've left out the factor of WHITE SUPREMACY and WHITE SKIN PRIVILEGE.

Racism is not just discrimination against or hatred or dislike of people of color, but the special "All-American" kind of capitalist exploitation and oppression of workers BASED ON NON-WHITENESS and where white workers as well get to participate in enjoying white skin privilege and in exploiting and oppressing workers of color.

I had thought most seriously (revolutionary) Left folks already had this at the center of their consciousness.

Apparently not.

No wonder the communist movement in this country is so fucked up.

Which country?

Most of us in Europe I think gave up believing in the 'labour aristocracy' about 80 years ago, and the re-heated versions in the 60s of 'white skin privilege' I don't think make much more sense (rather less in fact).

Parts of the working class has been thoroughly ideologically intergrated into capitalism, yes; bourgeois ideology does that, ruling ideas being the ideas of the ruling class and all. But the majority of white people are pretty shat upon by capitalism too.