Feminism

[dernier combat]

I have always considered myself a feminist, but lately I've gotten into a spot of bother when it comes to discussing the subject. Needless to say, feminism isn't exactly looked upon favourably by a lot of the working class where I live, and school is no exception. People are coming out and saying all sorts of things like "women and men are already equal (or close to it)", "feminists don't fight for anything worthwhile" and so on.

The problem is, I find it very hard to refute the above statements and I'm finding it somewhat hard to identify patriarchy in this society. Of course, there are obvious examples such as the fact there are more male managers and government officials/members of Parliament than females in the same field but to use that as a feminist argument is almost a complete abandonment of my principles (including anti-state, anti-social hierarchy, etc.).

So just what are other examples of patriarchy in "Western" society, and what are examples of what contemporary feminists fight for? Please, help a young comrade out.

[Manic Impressive]

I think a lot of sexism is underlying as with racism, a man might not openly talk of women as property but many will still see them as such the same way someone might work closely with an asian person but still call asian people pakis when they are not around. By property I mean baby making machines and enslaved housewives. I'll give an example of two friends of mine who once they had had a kid the male friend says to the female "you are not going to work any more" actually I think it was more like "no wife of mine is going to work" so basically instructing her to do the opposite of what she wanted. That's just one example but this is still a widely held belief by some sections of society. Also I don't feel it's going against your principles to use arguments that adhere to someone else's views, so use the argument that in the highest paid jobs there are still less women especially in the top banks and such. There is also still a huge difference in salaries within medium paying jobs for women and in the world of sport.

Good thread I'll be following this closely.

[thriller]

Women, on average, make two-third's of what men make as far as wages go. And this is across the board, from McDonalds to CEO's. There is also what many call a 'glass ceiling'. Where women are told they can achieve whatever they want, but in reality can only move up the ladder to a certain rung. Also, you could use pornography as an example. In many pornographic movies, women are treated as shit by the male characters. Of course they are acting, but it still shows sexism. Appearance is a big one. Men usually choose models for fashion. They choose the skinny "hot" females to serve as the norm of society, which further damage women's self esteem. You could also use abortion rights as an example as well.

My examples for you are from US society, so they may be different if you're not in the US.

[9]

I think a lot of sexism is underlying as with racism, a man might not openly talk of women as property but many will still see them as such the same way someone might work closely with an asian person but still call asian people pakis when they are not around. By property I mean baby making machines and enslaved housewives. I'll give an example of two friends of mine who once they had had a kid the male friend says to the female "you are not going to work any more" actually I think it was more like "no wife of mine is going to work" so basically instructing her to do the opposite of what she wanted. That's just one example but this is still a widely held belief by some sections of society.

I'm not sure this is a very useful example. I don't know any "enslaved housewives", personally; come to think of it, I don't know any "housewives" at all. I know a lot of single mothers who work two and three shit-paying jobs, though.

Personally, I couldn't care less about how many female managers and CEOs and government officials there are... who cares about "glass ceilings"? Who cares how well women are represented among the bosses?

@OP:
when you say that you've "always considered [yourself] a feminist", what do you actually mean? How are you defining "feminism"?

[Manic Impressive]

Women, on average, make two-third's of what men make as far as wages go. And this is across the board, from McDonalds to CEO's.
At McDonalds? Isn't minimum wage a minimum wage?

Also, you could use pornography as an example. In many pornographic movies, women are treated as shit by the male characters. Of course they are acting, but it still shows sexism.Both men and women are into some stuff I can't understand, should they not be allowed to indulge in their sexual fantasies? (as long as no-one is seriously hurt ofc)


Appearance is a big one. Men usually choose models for fashion. They choose the skinny "hot" females to serve as the norm of society, which further damage women's self esteem. How would you counter the claim that "it is not straight men who run the fashion industry"

(inb4ban I'm not trying to be homophobic I just hear that argument a lot)

I thought of another one as well I think some parents perhaps subconsciously and unintentionally raise their daughters with the values that it is more important to be pretty than intelligent.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm not sure this is a very useful example. I don't know any "enslaved housewives", personally; come to think of it, I don't know any "housewives" at all. I know a lot of single mothers who work two and three shit-paying jobs, though.Well I do know some housewives and I can tell you that many of them would like to work but their partners are against it.


Personally, I couldn't care less about how many female managers and CEOs and government officials there are... who cares about "glass ceilings"? Who cares how well women are represented among the bosses? I wasn't talking about you or any other leftists for that matter but when arguing against someone who does hold being a boss as important I think it is a relevant argument.

[Widerstand]

Patriarchy in modern society? Sure.

-Reproductive labor is not compensated for. That means that single mothers have to live with twice or thrice the work load that a single man would have to live with. Giving their child to child care so they can manage their work often carries the social stigmata of being a "bad mother." (Single fathers exist too, but they are very rare.)

- Gender stereotypes are biased towards women - they are supposed to be "emotional, whiny, weak" etc. and need a strong, rational male to take care of them. This is a belief that many (of all sexes) hold. It leads to a lot of conclusions, such as that men have rights over women because they "protect" them.

-Women are far more than men pressured to fit a certain beauty standard, and consequently make up a greater portion of those with eating disorders. (Men often are victims of negative effects of steroids and amphetamines, due to the social expectation of men to be muscular - the other facet of patriarchy.)

-In some countries (ie. Germany, §218), women are legally denied the right to their body, either by outright forbidding abortion, or by forbidding abortion except under certain circumstances (in Germany, a counselling session is mandatory, else the woman can be charged). Women are simultaneously often pressured to abort "disabled" children, which poses another way of controlling the female body.

-In pretty much any country, women make the majority of victims of "sexualized violence" in relationships and family, whether it is verbalized, beating or all the way up to rape (and murder?). Victims are often blamed for "provoking" such a behavior ("she dressed in a slutty way").

-Transsexuals and homosexuals are discriminated upon, words like "fag", "dyke" and "homo" are commonly used as insults. This is a result of patriarchy, where men have to fit certain gender norms or they are seen as "lowly" or "too womanly" (again, this goes hand in a hand with a "devaluation" of everything stereotypically feminine).

-Prostitutes are primarily women, often forced, and usually sexually stigmatized, legally ignored, and with no social benefits (healthcare, etc.) for the prostitutes.

-The existence of primarily-female prostitution further solidifies the "madonna/whore"-concept, that a woman cannot have sex with many partners or is socially devalued (stigmatized as a whore), whereas a man can. Although unspoken, many believe, in one way or another, that prostitution is a necessary evil to protect "decent" women from being turned into "whores."

-Our society is highly perpetuated by "sex sells" type ads, which usually depict women "ready" for sex. This carries two implications: A) That (straight) men are the main earners and therefore are the ones ads should be directed at, and B) that women have to be "ready" for sex with the man at all times, they are degraded to a lust object. Of course, this is true for many porn media, too. These images usually carry other norms, such as that women have to be cute, etc. and all too often that males are allowed to be a little violent. All of these put pressure on women and construct desire in men, desire for exactly these norms, which leads to them treating women like they embody these norms (and if resisted, violence is "okay for men").

-There is a strong rollback against "political correctness", which also includes sexist speech, or "gendered speech" (in certain languages).

[thriller]

At McDonalds? Isn't minimum wage a minimum wage?

Both men and women are into some stuff I can't understand, should they not be allowed to indulge in their sexual fantasies? (as long as no-one is seriously hurt ofc)

How would you counter the claim that "it is not straight men who run the fashion industry"

(inb4ban I'm not trying to be homophobic I just hear that argument a lot)

1. If you think everyone at McDonalds makes minimum wage, you are seriously mistaken.

2. People should be allowed to indulge in there own sexual fantasies, but name a porno where the man takes a money shot from a woman, and I will retract that statement. [RETRACTED]

3. How would I counter the claim that "it is not straight men who run the fashion industry"? Well it is a stupid fucking claim. The fashion industry, just like any industry in a capitalist society, is driven by the profit motive. Sexy ladies sell. Who defines sexy in this society? The Fashion industry. If gay men ran the fashion industry, there would be hardly any women models, let alone skinny, big breasted ones. So therefore it is obviously mainly straight men who make the final decisions on who becomes a model, or else there would be plenty of "over weight" models in the Victoria Secret catalog.

[Widerstand]

2. People should be allowed to indulge in there own sexual fantasies, but name a porno where the man takes a money shot from a woman, and I will retract that statement.

Have you ever seen a femdom movie?

[thriller]

I have not. I looked it up, and I retract my previous statement.
Thanks for the info.

[Quail]

One thing a lot of feminists do actions around is sexist advertising. A lot of adverts are either unnecessarily sexualised, or else they promote unrealistic, unattainable beauty standards for women (for example, those that are photoshopped to look ridiculously thin).

[Manic Impressive]

1. If you think everyone at McDonalds makes minimum wage, you are seriously mistaken.ofc not everyone at McDonalds makes the same but you said at every level women make less. Entry level jobs and those that actually serve food would get paid the same? If I'm wrong i'll be happy to admit it.




The fashion industry, just like any industry in a capitalist society, is driven by the profit motive. Sexy ladies sell. Who defines sexy in this society? The Fashion industry. If gay men ran the fashion industry, there would be hardly any women models, let alone skinny, big breasted ones. So therefore it is obviously mainly straight men who make the final decisions on who becomes a model, or else there would be plenty of "over weight" models in the Victoria Secret catalog.
I don't know any straight men who would find her
http://www.eatsmartagesmart.com/images/anorexic_model-190x300.jpg
more attractive than http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CtW3fpAe3qc/S0ecqNyhk9I/AAAAAAAABwY/ruxf5TzpW_Q/s400/Plus+Size+1.jpg

So if it's not more attractive why do they use ultra skinny models?

[Quail]

I don't know any straight men who would find her
http://www.eatsmartagesmart.com/images/anorexic_model-190x300.jpg
more attractive than http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CtW3fpAe3qc/S0ecqNyhk9I/AAAAAAAABwY/ruxf5TzpW_Q/s400/Plus+Size+1.jpg

So if it's not more attractive why do they use ultra skinny models?

Sorry, this is one of my pet hates. I don't really care what men find attractive. The reason a woman looks a certain way isn't just to please men (or the preferred sex). I want to look good for myself, not for other people.

[Meridian]

Transsexuals and homosexuals are discriminated upon, words like "fag", "dyke" and "homo" are commonly used as insults. This is a result of patriarchy, where men have to fit certain gender norms or they are seen as "lowly" or "too womanly" (again, this goes hand in a hand with a "devaluation" of everything stereotypically feminine).
I agree with what you are saying but I don't think your reasoning behind it is necessarily correct. It is true that there is a strong stereotypical 'image' of what men are supposed to be like in many countries. This is also true of women, obviously.

But I am not sure that transsexuals and homosexuals are discriminated against (appearing "too feminine") because of a devaluation of everything stereotypically feminine. I mostly think it is because it goes against the norm for men, which I mentioned above.

My reasoning for this is partly because women who appear "too male", "too masculine", are similarly discriminated against in many cases.

[red cat]

Sorry, this is one of my pet hates. I don't really care what men find attractive. The reason a woman looks a certain way isn't just to please men (or the preferred sex). I want to look good for myself, not for other people.

Standards of female beauty have been set by patriarchy itself. Even if a woman does not consciously look good for the opposite sex, in most cases she adheres to those standards and behaves more or less the same way patriarchy requires her to. This is why the average woman is much more conscious about her looks than the average man.

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree with what you are saying but I don't think your reasoning behind it is necessarily correct. It is true that there is a strong stereotypical 'image' of what men are supposed to be like in many countries. This is also true of women, obviously.

But I am not sure that transsexuals and homosexuals are discriminated against (appearing "too feminine") because of a devaluation of everything stereotypically feminine. I mostly think it is because it goes against the norm for men, which I mentioned above.

My reasoning for this is partly because women who appear "too male", "too masculine", are similarly discriminated against in many cases.

However, consider the fact that male-to-female trans people are discriminated more than female-to-male trans people, and "effeminate" gay people are discriminated more than straight-looking masculine gay people, so part of the discrimination is indeed related to the fact that "feminine" things are generally valued less than "masculine" things in class society.

Also, historically, significant LGBT discrimination only began to emerge in patriarchal chiefdom and later class societies. During the era of matriarchal primitive communism, there was little LGBT discrimination. So sexism and LGBT discrimination are intrinsically linked.

What you said about "transsexuals and homosexuals are discriminated against ... because it goes against the norm for men" only makes sense for homosexuals, but does not make sense at all for transsexuals. Male-to-female transsexuals are not men, they are women, so how are they affected by "what is considered to be normal for men"? Unless you think "trans-women aren't really women". Indeed, transphobia is technically a sub-set of sexism to some extent because technically trans-women are a sub-category of women in general. Feminism obviously matters far more for MtF trans people than for gay people, which is why there is actually a trans-feminist movement, a sub-branch of the feminist movement.

And how would your idea here fit in with female-to-male trans-sexuals? They are not discriminated because it goes against the norm for men, but rather the precise opposite, because people refuse to consider them as men and therefore consider them to be not normal relative to what women should be like.

[Quail]

Standards of female beauty have been set by patriarchy itself. Even if a woman does not consciously look good for the opposite sex, in most cases she adheres to those standards and behaves more or less the same way patriarchy requires her to. This is why the average woman is much more conscious about her looks than the average man.
While this may be true, I reject the argument that women shouldn't want to be skinny because men prefer curves. It's a bullshit argument that suggests a man's opinion should shape a woman's looks. For example, I've been told I look more attractive with long hair, but I prefer it short. By the same argument used earlier in this thread, I should grow my hair if I want to feel attractive.

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry, this is one of my pet hates. I don't really care what men find attractive. The reason a woman looks a certain way isn't just to please men (or the preferred sex). I want to look good for myself, not for other people.
I'm sorry Kayl I was trying to prove that the use of ultra skinny models is not because people find it more attractive. In the case of models it is their job to be attractive and like many others I cannot understand why they use ultra skinny models to me it doesn't make commercial sense. All i'm asking for is an explanation to this contradiction.

[Quail]

It's not necessarily their job to be attractive, more to act as "walking coathangers" to show off the designer's clothes (if you notice, most glamour models do have curves because their job is to be attractive). The reason models "have" to be so thin is that people won't employ them if they aren't. It's a competitive industry and it's no surprise many if not most models have eating disorders. I'm not sure why it came to be that thinner is seen as better, but it's a standard set by the designers.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

It's not necessarily their job to be attractive, more to act as "walking coathangers" to show off the designer's clothes (if you notice, most glamour models do have curves because their job is to be attractive). The reason models "have" to be so thin is that people won't employ them if they aren't. It's a competitive industry and it's no surprise many if not most models have eating disorders. I'm not sure why it came to be that thinner is seen as better, but it's a standard set by the designers.

To follow on from this point about thinness and the fashion industry, the fashion industry is essentially one huge self-fulfilling prophecy, much more so than any 'creative' industry (TV, Music, Film etc), as the designs made by the fashion lables are always hits that season, and if you look at models over the past 50+ years there has been an increasing trend towards increadibly tall, increadibly thin models (in both sexes), while this trend has been criticized in the non-fashion media, the world of fashion itself, largely refuses to change, despite some high profile campaigns 'against' the trend. For the Fashion industry, the parable of the Emperor's new Clothes is not a cautionary tale, but rather the industry standard.

[Manic Impressive]

It's not necessarily their job to be attractive, more to act as "walking coathangers" to show off the designer's clothes (if you notice, most glamour models do have curves because their job is to be attractive). The reason models "have" to be so thin is that people won't employ them if they aren't. It's a competitive industry and it's no surprise many if not most models have eating disorders. I'm not sure why it came to be that thinner is seen as better, but it's a standard set by the designers.
So it's the designers fault I agree with that and they could change it if they really wanted too and I'm aware that some are trying. But most fashion designers are not hetrosexual men I know some are and some very successful ones are but the majority of them aren't so is it still patriarchy?

[Quail]

I think the promotion of any kind of "ideal" body comes from patriarchy, whether it's the ideal male or female body. It has become very warped in the fashion industry, but the idea that an ideal body exists and that we should strive for it is a sexist idea.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

So it's the designers fault I agree with that and they could change it if they really wanted too and I'm aware that some are trying. But most fashion designers are not hetrosexual men I know some are and some very successful ones are but the majority of them aren't so is it still patriarchy?

I'd certainly say it was patriarchal. Patricarchy itself is the dominance of men it has little to do with gender itself, and I'd even go so far as to suggest that even in a hetronormative society it is more acceptable to be a gay man than a gay woman.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Sorry, this is one of my pet hates. I don't really care what men find attractive. The reason a woman looks a certain way isn't just to please men (or the preferred sex). I want to look good for myself, not for other people.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. People up-thread had claimed that skinny women were employed as models because straight men liked it. How you like to dress is up to you but also nothing to do with the question under discussion. Don't hijack the thread just because it is tangentially connected to a "pet hate" of yours.

[Quail]

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. People up-thread had claimed that skinny women were employed as models because straight men liked it. How you like to dress is up to you but also nothing to do with the question under discussion. Don't hijack the thread just because it is tangentially connected to a "pet hate" of yours.
It has everything to do with the thread, because someone posted an image of a skinny woman and a curvy woman and questioned why women want to look like the former when men find the latter more attractive.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

I'd even go so far as to suggest that even in a hetronormative society it is more acceptable to be a gay man than a gay woman.
This is absolute nonsense. It's not even more acceptable to be a straight man than a straight woman. Women are portrayed as calm, competent and caring. Men are portrayed as thuggish intoxicated boors. We live in a matriarchy, in which women don't have to work and men are enslaved in the labour market. Is that absolute nonsense too? Probably, but no more than your comments.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

This is absolute nonsense. It's not even more acceptable to be a straight man than a straight woman. Women are portrayed as calm, competent and caring. Men are portrayed as thuggish intoxicated boors. We live in a matriarchy, in which women don't have to work and men are enslaved in the labour market. Is that absolute nonsense too? Probably, but no more than your comments.

Strawman, please state your criticism of my comment.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is absolute nonsense. It's not even more acceptable to be a straight man than a straight woman. Women are portrayed as calm, competent and caring. Men are portrayed as thuggish intoxicated boors. We live in a matriarchy, in which women don't have to work and men are enslaved in the labour market. Is that absolute nonsense too? Probably, but no more than your comments.

Generic-style comments like this don't mean much, one way or another. I prefer to examine concrete statistics, which is the Marxist method. Female workers are still generally paid less than male workers, and more females suffer violence and rape in their lives than males generally speaking. From this I draw the conclusion that women are generally speaking more oppressed by men.

Of course, male workers are oppressed heavily too. But blame that on capitalism, not on women.

[Manic Impressive]

It has everything to do with the thread, because someone posted an image of a skinny woman and a curvy woman and questioned why women want to look like the former when men find the latter more attractive.
Actually that wasn't what I meant, I was asking why women were being made to feel that they needed to look like that and why if sex sells do they not choose models who are more attractive to the majority of men (should've been people, my bad) As to me that would make more commercial sense.

Sorry if I wasn't clearer I'm a bit nervous posting in this thread in case I don't word something correctly :)

[red cat]

While this may be true, I reject the argument that women shouldn't want to be skinny because men prefer curves. It's a bullshit argument that suggests a man's opinion should shape a woman's looks. For example, I've been told I look more attractive with long hair, but I prefer it short. By the same argument used earlier in this thread, I should grow my hair if I want to feel attractive.

Sadly, it mostly does. What you do does not hold true for most women. Most women try to set their looks according to what they think men would prefer. Until patriarchy has been demolished completely, this trend will remain.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

It has everything to do with the thread, because someone posted an image of a skinny woman and a curvy woman and questioned why women want to look like the former when men find the latter more attractive.
That's a lie. That is a straight-up lie.


I don't know any straight men who would find her <anorexic girl> more attractive than <curvy girl>. So if it's not more attractive why do they use ultra skinny models?
At no point does he ask why women want to look like the skinny girl. He asked why they use the "ultra skinny models" if the fashion industry is about straight men's tastes.


This is why feminism is dangerous and anti-socialist. It's nothing but genital nationalism, and warps the thought processes. Just as nationalist bigots think that all of their problems are due to the Jews / the Americans / the English / etc, so feminist bigots think that all of their problems are caused by men. Word to the wise: you aren't being oppressed by "men" any more than you're being oppressed by international Jewry or lizards from the fourth dimension - you're being oppressed by capitalism.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Sadly, it mostly does. What you do does not hold true for most women. Most women try to set their looks according to what they think men would prefer. Until patriarchy has been demolished completely, this trend will remain.

Do you have anything sources, studies, statistics etc to support this claim?

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Actually that wasn't what I meant, I was asking why women were being made to feel that they needed to look like that and why if sex sells do they not choose models who are more attractive to the majority of men (should've been people, my bad) As to me that would make more commercial sense.

Sorry if I wasn't clearer I'm a bit nervous posting in this thread in case I don't word something correctly :)
You worded it fine, comrade. The fault was not in your wording, but in their reading.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Strawman, please state your criticism of my comment.
My criticism is that you have nothing to back it up but are just trotting out the same old clichés of androphobic feminist separatism.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Generic-style comments like this don't mean much, one way or another. I prefer to examine concrete statistics, which is the Marxist method. Female workers are still generally paid less than male workers, and more females suffer violence and rape in their lives than males generally speaking. From this I draw the conclusion that women are generally speaking more oppressed by men.

Of course, male workers are oppressed heavily too. But blame that on capitalism, not on women.
Lies, classic feminist lies. Men are many, many times more likely to be the victim of violence than are women.

And your conclusion is scarcely credible: you are happy to blame men for "women's oppression", but "men's oppression" is solely down to capitalism. IT'S ALL ABOUT CAPITALISM. That is the "Marxist method". Go and read On the Jewish Question. This blaming of men is just another bourgeois capitalist wedge driven among the working classes to divide us.

[Quail]

Actually that wasn't what I meant, I was asking why women were being made to feel that they needed to look like that and why if sex sells do they not choose models who are more attractive to the majority of men (should've been people, my bad) As to me that would make more commercial sense.

Sorry if I wasn't clearer I'm a bit nervous posting in this thread in case I don't word something correctly :)
In the fashion industry, generally clothes on female models are aimed at women, so in this case, sex doesn't necessarily sell, but if the clothes are shown on "perfect" women then it makes the clothes look more appealing.


Sadly, it mostly does. What you do does not hold true for most women. Most women try to set their looks according to what they think men would prefer. Until patriarchy has been demolished completely, this trend will remain.
This is true, but just because it does happen, it doesn't mean that it should.

Le Corsaire Rouge, you are sexist as fuck and deserve to be restricted or banned very fucking quickly.

[Widerstand]

Men are many, many times more likely to be the victim of violence than are women.

I guess it depends what kind of violence we speak of.

[red cat]

Do you have anything sources, studies, statistics etc to support this claim?

To be honest, no. My thoughts are due to discussions with feminist friends. By the way, why is it that on an average, women are much more conscious about their looks than men ?

[red cat]

This is true, but just because it does happen, it doesn't mean that it should.


Exactly my point. We should acknowledge that it happens, and fight it.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

My criticism is that you have nothing to back it up but are just trotting out the same old clichés of androphobic feminist separatism.

I have no Idea what the hell 'androphobic feminist separatism', my comment was based on my personal observations of popular culture, where, while the main role of homosexual men in the media is little more than a tired sterotype, the complete absence of any portrayal of lesbian women - beyond anything but male fantasies, suggests that while homosexual men are accepted as long as they fulfill the preset sterotype, homosexual women have no place in society. However, as I already implied, this is purely based off my own (admittedly unscientific) observations of the modern media.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

To be honest, no. My thoughts are due to discussions with feminist friends. By the way, why is it that on an average, women are much more conscious about their looks than men ?

Social conformity, I doubt you'd find the same self-conciousness amongst amerindians of the amazon basin.

[Queercommie Girl]

Lies, classic feminist lies. Men are many, many times more likely to be the victim of violence than are women.

And your conclusion is scarcely credible: you are happy to blame men for "women's oppression", but "men's oppression" is solely down to capitalism. IT'S ALL ABOUT CAPITALISM. That is the "Marxist method". Go and read On the Jewish Question. This blaming of men is just another bourgeois capitalist wedge driven among the working classes to divide us.

I think you are jumping the gun way too rashly here. Socialist feminism does not intrinsically blame men for the oppression of women, but on class society in general (not just capitalism, if anti-capitalist means going in a semi-feudal direction which is even more oppressive and sexist, e.g. in Iran, then frankly it's better to be pro-capitalist. Marxists are not just against capitalism. We are against class society in general. Slavery and feudalism are even worse than capitalism is). However it cannot be denied that at present female workers generally suffer more oppression and exploitation than male workers, and that some men are indeed sexist and discriminate against women. Pointing this out does not mean the "male sex" in general is intrinsically to blame for women's oppression.

It's ultimately all about class society (not just capitalism), yes, but in reality it's very complex. Workers are divided along the lines of gender, culture, race, sexuality etc. "Working class unity" is never abstract, nor is it something that can be bureaucratically applied in a top-down manner at all. It can only grow organically out of the worker's movement as different sections of workers show each other respect and unite in solidarity.

Your idea here is as ridiculous as saying that it is "un-Marxist" for workers in third world neo-colonial countries to be explicitly against Western imperialism rather than just being anti-capitalist in general.

[WeAreReborn]

Lies, classic feminist lies. Men are many, many times more likely to be the victim of violence than are women.

And your conclusion is scarcely credible: you are happy to blame men for "women's oppression", but "men's oppression" is solely down to capitalism. IT'S ALL ABOUT CAPITALISM. That is the "Marxist method". Go and read On the Jewish Question. This blaming of men is just another bourgeois capitalist wedge driven among the working classes to divide us.
Feminist lies? All Feminism is striving for is equality. If you think different you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Also there is such a thing as respect so please learn it. That is true men's oppression is solely due to Capitalism. Who do you think runs the world currently? I sure as hell don't see women running the top 10 companies or women running the government. Is it because they are incompetent? Because I'm sure there are some woman who are as greedy and ambitious as those who do and are probably just as competent. The problem is the underlying sexism that rules this society. You are just blinded by the fact that since you are a man you must defend your sex. You need to defend people, especially the ones who are the victims. Not just something you are considered a part of.
" That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics." According to Time Magazine.

[red cat]

Social conformity, I doubt you'd find the same self-conciousness amongst amerindians of the amazon basin.

If you are talking about pre-feudal societies that have been more or less stagnated by imperialism, then obviously you won't find that much consciousness about looks of women there. In those societies patriarchy exists in different primitive forms and sometimes is even extremely weak in nature.

[thriller]

ofc not everyone at McDonalds makes the same but you said at every level women make less. Entry level jobs and those that actually serve food would get paid the same? If I'm wrong i'll be happy to admit it.




I don't know any straight men who would find her
http://www.eatsmartagesmart.com/images/anorexic_model-190x300.jpg
more attractive than http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CtW3fpAe3qc/S0ecqNyhk9I/AAAAAAAABwY/ruxf5TzpW_Q/s400/Plus+Size+1.jpg

So if it's not more attractive why do they use ultra skinny models?

Because men are usually in control of the fashion industry and set the definition of "attractive"

Also, the latter picture is not the typical woman seen in victoria secret catalog, or even a JC Penny catalog.

i'm not saying that the skinny lady is more or less attractive. What I am saying is that men in high positions promote their own idea of attractiveness.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Le Corsaire Rouge, you are sexist as fuck and deserve to be restricted or banned very fucking quickly.
I'm not the one espousing genital nationalism. Treating people of the opposite sex as the enemy is reactionary liberalism, and nothing at all to do with socialism. I am opposed to bigoted conspiracy theories of all kinds, and that goes for "the patriarchy" as much as it does for "international Jewry" and "the lizards from the fourth dimension".

[Widerstand]

I'm not the one espousing genital nationalism. Treating people of the opposite sex as the enemy is reactionary liberalism, and nothing at all to do with socialism. I am opposed to bigoted conspiracy theories of all kinds, and that goes for "the patriarchy" as much as it does for "international Jewry" and "the lizards from the fourth dimension".

Are you saying patriarchy doesn't exist?

[WeAreReborn]

I'm not the one espousing genital nationalism. Treating people of the opposite sex as the enemy is reactionary liberalism, and nothing at all to do with socialism. I am opposed to bigoted conspiracy theories of all kinds, and that goes for "the patriarchy" as much as it does for "international Jewry" and "the lizards from the fourth dimension".
You clearly didn't read what I said or what feminism is. It isn't saying men are evil, I for one am a feminist and a male. It is about having men and women being equal. And you are a sexist pig. This shit that you spewed above proves it. Everyone else is saying how society should change but it seems like you want it to stay the same. That isn't revolutionary but reactionary. You are the reactionary in this situation. So hopefully you will get restricted or banned because you are not progressive, and you clearly make rash statements without seconds worth of though. Also, you blatantly attacked other people in this forum for no clear reason.

[Quail]

I'm not the one espousing genital nationalism. Treating people of the opposite sex as the enemy is reactionary liberalism, and nothing at all to do with socialism. I am opposed to bigoted conspiracy theories of all kinds, and that goes for "the patriarchy" as much as it does for "international Jewry" and "the lizards from the fourth dimension".

How the fuck is feminism "bigoted" when it fights for gender equality? Men aren't the enemy, but they are priveliged in our patriarchal society. That's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

You've made numerous sexist comments on this board, so I have to conclude you're a sexist arsehole and all I really have to say now is go fuck yourself.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

I think you are jumping the gun way too rashly here. Socialist feminism does not intrinsically blame men for the oppression of women, but on class society in general (not just capitalism, if anti-capitalist means going in a semi-feudal direction which is even more oppressive and sexist, e.g. in Iran, then frankly it's better to be pro-capitalist. Marxists are not just against capitalism. We are against class society in general. Slavery and feudalism are even worse than capitalism is). However it cannot be denied that at present female workers generally suffer more oppression and exploitation than male workers, and that some men are indeed sexist and discriminate against women. Pointing this out does not mean the "male sex" in general is intrinsically to blame for women's oppression.

It's ultimately all about class society (not just capitalism), yes, but in reality it's very complex. Workers are divided along the lines of gender, culture, race, sexuality etc. "Working class unity" is never abstract, nor is it something that can be bureaucratically applied in a top-down manner at all. It can only grow organically out of the worker's movement as different sections of workers show each other respect and unite in solidarity.
You're absolutely right, talking about capitalism rather than class society was a technical error. I apologise for any confusion. But "it cannot be denied that at present female workers generally suffer more oppression and exploitation than male workers" is wrong, because I deny it! Both are equally oppressed and it's pmatronising and sexist to claim otherwise, but the oppression manifests itself in different ways. Gender differences obviously exists; "the patriarchy" is a bigoted conspiracy theory invented to explain them, much as some believe that an international Jewish conspiracy is responsible for their suffering.



Your idea here is as ridiculous as saying that it is "un-Marxist" for workers in third world neo-colonial countries to be explicitly against Western imperialism rather than just being anti-capitalist in general.
Defining themselves as being specifically against "Western" imperialism, and encouraging their own despotic governments or Chinese, Iranian or other imperialism - as many workers in third world countries are subverted into doing, just as Western workers are subverted into their own nationalist movements - is indeed un-Marxist, and stupid to boot.
Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.
We are not utopians or bleeding-hearts, but hard-headed dialectical materialists. As you say, it's about class struggle. Framing that in nationalist or genderist terms of the superstructure rather than the base is counter-revolutionary.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Are you saying patriarchy doesn't exist?
Yes, I am. Gender differences exist which have positives and negatives for both genders. This is not the same as the conspiracy theory of "patriarchy".

[Ol' Dirty]

The real problem with the aftermath of the old feminist movement is that women now take up the double burden of employment and the home.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

How the fuck is feminism "bigoted" when it fights for gender equality? Men aren't the enemy, but they are priveliged in our patriarchal society. That's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

You've made numerous sexist comments on this board, so I have to conclude you're a sexist arsehole and all I really have to say now is go fuck yourself.
You're not fighting for gender equality. That's like saying that nationalists are fighting for national equality.

You may resort to such phrases, but I don't want you to "fuck yourself". I want you to stop seeing the world through the eyes of a conspiracy theory and wake up to the real economic system that powers the oppression of everybody.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

You clearly didn't read what I said or what feminism is. It isn't saying men are evil, I for one am a feminist and a male. It is about having men and women being equal. And you are a sexist pig. This shit that you spewed above proves it. Everyone else is saying how society should change but it seems like you want it to stay the same. That isn't revolutionary but reactionary. You are the reactionary in this situation. So hopefully you will get restricted or banned because you are not progressive, and you clearly make rash statements without seconds worth of though. Also, you blatantly attacked other people in this forum for no clear reason.
I don't want society to stay the same: I just don't think that it can change by adopting a sectarian approach. And as for "blatant attacks", I didn't tell anyone to "fuck themselves".

[Quail]

You're not fighting for gender equality. That's like saying that nationalists are fighting for national equality.

You may resort to such phrases, but I don't want you to "fuck yourself". I want you to stop seeing the world through the eyes of a conspiracy theory and wake up to the real economic system that powers the oppression of everybody.

Patriarchy is tied up with the capitalist system, but needs to be combatted alongside it. Patriarchy a conspiracy theory? Fuck off. Try being a woman, and then tell me patriarchy doesn't exist.

[Widerstand]

Yes, I am. Gender differences exist which have positives and negatives for both genders. This is not the same as the conspiracy theory of "patriarchy".

Is that a "human nature" argument?

[WeAreReborn]

You're not fighting for gender equality. That's like saying that nationalists are fighting for national equality.

You may resort to such phrases, but I don't want you to "fuck yourself". I want you to stop seeing the world through the eyes of a conspiracy theory and wake up to the real economic system that powers the oppression of everybody.
But they are. Do you think black nationalism means they want superiority? No it means they want to be equal. That is what the black panthers stood for. That is what feminists stand for. It isn't a conspiracy theory that women are in general more oppressed then men. If anything it makes us more willing and have a better cause to change this fucked up system. It does effect both men and women, and every nationality, but you cannot deny that say mexicans are less oppressed then white people. Does it mean white people are evil or the oppressors?

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Is that a "human nature" argument?
No, comrade: I can see why you might jump to that conclusion, but no. I was using gender in the usual sense in such discourse, of the social construction rather than the physical biological differentiation. People taking the roles of gendered women and people taking the roles of gendered men are both advantaged and disadvantaged by contemporary capitalist bourgeois society in different ways. Talking about "patriarchy" conceals this, as does any simplistic conspiracy theory.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

But they are. Do you think black nationalism means they want superiority? No it means they want to be equal. That is what the black panthers stood for. That is what feminists stand for. It isn't a conspiracy theory that women are in general more oppressed then men. If anything it makes us more willing and have a better cause to change this fucked up system. It does effect both men and women, and every nationality, but you cannot deny that say mexicans are less oppressed then white people. Does it mean white people are evil or the oppressors?
Mexico certainly has a lower per capita GDP than, say, the United States. But is personal income really the be all and end all for socialists? Mexico has many good aspects relative to the United States.

And no, I don't support the Black Panther movement. I think that it was flawed in its approach on many levels.

[WeAreReborn]

Mexico certainly has a lower per capita GDP than, say, the United States. But is personal income really the be all and end all for socialists? Mexico has many good aspects relative to the United States.

And no, I don't support the Black Panther movement. I think that it was flawed in its approach on many levels.
I mean Mexicans in America. Also the Black Panthers were flawed but they had a great goal and they did have a decent approach. The only reason they fell apart was because Huey Newton was murdered.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Patriarchy is tied up with the capitalist system, but needs to be combatted alongside it. Patriarchy a conspiracy theory? Fuck off. Try being a woman, and then tell me patriarchy doesn't exist.
"Try being a woman"? You seem, like so many feminists, to think that being a man is the perfect life. Honestly comrade, life as a man is not as awesome as you make it out to be.

[Queercommie Girl]

But "it cannot be denied that at present female workers generally suffer more oppression and exploitation than male workers" is wrong, because I deny it! Both are equally oppressed and it's pmatronising and sexist to claim otherwise, but the oppression manifests itself in different ways.


That's not what statistics show.



Defining themselves as being specifically against "Western" imperialism, and encouraging their own despotic governments or Chinese, Iranian or other imperialism
Being against Western imperialism does not imply supporting domestic despotism.



We are not utopians or bleeding-hearts, but hard-headed dialectical materialists. As you say, it's about class struggle.
That Marxist passage refers only to Indian society, not Chinese society, since Marx did not actually study Chinese society directly. Later Marxist study on ancient China has shown that China did not really fit into Marx's idea of the "Asiatic Mode of Production", but actually had a type of feudalism that was more advanced than pre-capitalist European societies in many ways. After all, it was the Chinese that invented gunpowder, the magnetic compass, paper and printing, three of these Marx explicitly considered to be the technological innovations that helped to bring about the capitalist age. There is nothing really progressive about "European culture" as such, Europe only seemed to be more progressive in recent centuries because it entered the capitalist age first. Indeed it was precisely because European feudalism was relatively backward that capitalism arrived first in Europe, a capitalist version of Lenin's theory of "the weakest link" if you like.

Also, being dialectical means it's not actually about being "hard-headed" all the time. Strategically speaking sometimes it is better to be "hard", while at other times it is better to be "soft", it depends on the situation.

Class struggle yes, and it is a matter of strategy and tactics. The greatest potential strength of the working class in general is its unity, and that is also its greatest potential weakness. Working class unity is a central strategic principle in class struggle in general, and it can only be achieved through actually recognising the objectively existing differences among different sections of the working class and how we can deal with each section's specific struggles and issues. It can never be achieved through an abstract, rigid, dogmatic and bureaucratic method.



Framing that in nationalist or genderist terms of the superstructure rather than the base is counter-revolutionary.
But it is precisely the principle of dialectical materialism and historical materialism which suggests that although "base determines superstructure", it does not do so in a mechanical manner, and sometimes the superstructure can also counteract on the base itself. Although nationalism is wrong, Marxists should support struggles for national liberation and self-determination; although it is wrong to blame men in general and intrinsically for the oppression of women, it doesn't imply we should ignore the particular issues faced by women alone.

The working class as a whole is a dialectical mutual interaction of the "general" and the "particular", and of "unity" and "diversity".

[WeAreReborn]

"Try being a woman"? You seem, like so many feminists, to think that being a man is the perfect life. Honestly comrade, life as a man is not as awesome as you make it out to be.
I doubt she was glorifying a male's life. She was just saying you can't say they aren't oppressed or treated poorly as a group when you aren't apart of that group. That is all she is saying.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

I mean Mexicans in America.
But of course Mexico is in America, same as Canada and Panama and Argentina... But by "America" you mean "USA! USA!", don't you. That's an extremely Amero-centric approach. And are you really talking about "Mexicans in America" or are you using "Mexicans" as a generic catch-all for "dark people from south below the USA, whatever, they're all Mexicans or something, I dunno"? Answering your question broadly, I think that there are some very rich Latinos in the US and some very poor Latinos in the US, and that there are also some very rich "whites" in the US and some very poor "whites" in the US, and that analysing the problem racially is a counter-productive distraction from the real issue of bourgeois capitalist class society.


Also the Black Panthers were flawed but they had a great goal and they did have a decent approach. The only reason they fell apart was because Huey Newton was murdered.
Some of the Black Panthers had a great goal. Far from all. And an organisation that falls apart only because its leader dies doesn't sound like it had very strong community roots or effective democratic decision-making.

[Stephen Colbert]

I have always considered myself a feminist, but lately I've gotten into a spot of bother when it comes to discussing the subject. Needless to say, feminism isn't exactly looked upon favourably by a lot of the working class where I live, and school is no exception. People are coming out and saying all sorts of things like "women and men are already equal (or close to it)", "feminists don't fight for anything worthwhile" and so on.

The problem is, I find it very hard to refute the above statements and I'm finding it somewhat hard to identify patriarchy in this society. Of course, there are obvious examples such as the fact there are more male managers and government officials/members of Parliament than females in the same field but to use that as a feminist argument is almost a complete abandonment of my principles (including anti-state, anti-social hierarchy, etc.).

So just what are other examples of patriarchy in "Western" society, and what are examples of what contemporary feminists fight for? Please, help a young comrade out.

Equality in pay is huge one.

I also think that particularly sexist attitudes(a lot of aforementioned posts have examples) that you might see on advertisements and in popular culture should be combated as well.

Abortion rights is an obvious one as well.

[WeAreReborn]

But of course Mexico is in America, same as Canada and Panama and Argentina... But by "America" you mean "USA! USA!", don't you. That's an extremely Amero-centric approach. And are you really talking about "Mexicans in America" or are you using "Mexicans" as a generic catch-all for "dark people from south below the USA, whatever, they're all Mexicans or something, I dunno"? Answering your question broadly, I think that there are some very rich Latinos in the US and some very poor Latinos in the US, and that there are also some very rich "whites" in the US and some very poor "whites" in the US, and that analysing the problem racially is a counter-productive distraction from the real issue of bourgeois capitalist class society.


Some of the Black Panthers had a great goal. Far from all. And an organisation that falls apart only because its leader dies doesn't sound like it had very strong community roots or effective democratic decision-making.
No I mean Mexicans in the United States.. You are right that it should be noted that they are apart of America but you also should realize that all the continents are European labels anyways so that whole argument falls apart. And also I was speaking only of Mexicans but nice real polite to try to make a non racist comment into one. I realize there is other oppression of Central and South Americans but I was specifically using Mexicans in the United States as an example. Anyways nice distraction.. you should focus on feminism and not trying to unrightfully make me into a racist.

[Stephen Colbert]

Herbert Marcuse had a series of interviews were he identifies the virtu of the womens movement as being the best possible vehicle for social change.

Why? Because he understands the gravity behind the social movement. It is a broad base of motivated individuals who have been the brunt of sexism for a long time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pzfy2izu44

Its in this video series if i'm not mistaken. Feminism also could play a huge role in labor activism and economic justice.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

I doubt she was glorifying a male's life. She was just saying you can't say they aren't oppressed or treated poorly as a group when you aren't apart of that group. That is all she is saying.
Firstly, I didn't say that women aren't oppressed or treated poorly. That would be stupid. I said only that men are oppressed and treated poorly too, in different ways. And that there are also benefits, not only to being a gender-man, but to being a gender-woman.

Secondly, according to her sectarian logic, she would be unable, by virtue of her genitals, to dispute at all the suggestion that men are oppressed by a matriarchy. I really don't think that she wants to go there.

Thirdly, that wasn't all she was saying: she was positing the existence of a "patriarchy".

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

No I mean Mexicans in the United States.. You are right that it should be noted that they are apart of America but you also should realize that all the continents are European labels anyways so that whole argument falls apart. And also I was speaking only of Mexicans but nice real polite to try to make a non racist comment into one. I realize there is other oppression of Central and South Americans but I was specifically using Mexicans in the United States as an example. Anyways nice distraction.. you should focus on feminism and not trying to unrightfully make me into a racist.
Comrade, I don't at all think that you're a racist, at least no more than everyone who is soaked in hegemonic ruling class ideology is. But what you said was wrong-headed.

Besides, I answered what I think was your question, about Latinos in the US:

"I think that there are some very rich Latinos in the US and some very poor Latinos in the US, and that there are also some very rich "whites" in the US and some very poor "whites" in the US, and that analysing the problem racially is a counter-productive distraction from the real issue of bourgeois capitalist class society."

I think that the analogy to gender is clear.

[WeAreReborn]

Comrade, I don't at all think that you're a racist, at least no more than everyone who is soaked in hegemonic ruling class ideology is. But what you said was wrong-headed.

Besides, I answered what I think was your question, about Latinos in the US:

"I think that there are some very rich Latinos in the US and some very poor Latinos in the US, and that there are also some very rich "whites" in the US and some very poor "whites" in the US, and that analysing the problem racially is a counter-productive distraction from the real issue of bourgeois capitalist class society."

I think that the analogy to gender is clear.
I am not talking about income level, I am talking about social racism that stems from the government and society. Just like women inequality stems from the government and society. As a man myself, I can say that at least from what I see woman are , in general, more discriminated against. That is not to say men aren't, but as a whole women are viewed much more as objects.

[WeAreReborn]

Thirdly, that wasn't all she was saying: she was positing the existence of a "patriarchy".
"Patriarchy is an androcentric social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property."
Though I must say it is not completely patriarchal but it is close and you thinking that it isn't is straight up denial. It is also to be noted that it is situational and a lot of males treat women with respect and equality but society as a whole is patriarchal.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

That's not what statistics show.
How on earth can you quantify every aspect of oppression into statistics that "prove" one gender's greater degree of oppression? Oppression is not just a question of bean-counting personal income. It's a much deeper social phenomenon that covers things that you can't boil down to a definitive statistic. This is a major part of why I am opposed to describing one worker's oppression as "better" or "worse" than another's: we should be fighting to end oppression entirely through wholesale revolution, not picking, in bourgeois-liberal manner, one or two areas where we politely ask for reform because we have prepared "statistics" on them.


Being against Western imperialism does not imply supporting domestic despotism.
Bothering to state up-front that you're against Western imperialism implies that you think that it's "worse" than the domestic despotism, as if being oppressed isn't so bad so long as you share a skin colour and a language with your oppressors.


Also, being dialectical means it's not actually about being "hard-headed" all the time. Strategically speaking sometimes it is better to be "hard", while at other times it is better to be "soft", it depends on the situation.

Class struggle yes, and it is a matter of strategy and tactics. The greatest potential strength of the working class in general is its unity, and that is also its greatest potential weakness. Working class unity is a central strategic principle in class struggle in general, and it can only be achieved through actually recognising the objectively existing differences among different sections of the working class and how we can deal with each section's specific struggles and issues. It can never be achieved through an abstract, rigid, dogmatic and bureaucratic method.
I agree with this completely, except that I think you misunderstand "hard-headed" as "cruel", whereas I mean that we should keep our minds on the reality of the situation and not on the seductions of identity politics. My complaint is that feminism is exactly "an abstract, rigid, dogmatic and bureaucratic method". It has its dogma of the victimhood of women and the conspiracy of men, and it blinkers its adherents in how they approach every other issue.


But it is precisely the principle of dialectical materialism and historical materialism which suggests that although "base determines superstructure", it does not do so in a mechanical manner, and sometimes the superstructure can also counteract on the base itself. Although nationalism is wrong, Marxists should support struggles for national liberation and self-determination; although it is wrong to blame men in general and intrinsically for the oppression of women, it doesn't imply we should ignore the particular issues faced by women alone.

The working class as a whole is a dialectical mutual interaction of the "general" and the "particular", and of "unity" and "diversity".
The way I read this, you're agreeing with me ... You think that women do suffer in specific ways that are different to men, but that the idea of a "patriarchy" is overblown. If you add in that there are also particular issues that are faced by men alone then I really don't see where you're disagreeing with me, except that you are more forgiving towards nationalism and genderism in the socialist movement than I want to be.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Off for the evening, thanks all for the interesting conversation - perhaps may get a chance to continue tomorrow.

[Property Is Robbery]

At McDonalds? Isn't minimum wage a minimum wage?

A male friend of mine doesn't make above minimum wage there

http://www.eatsmartagesmart.com/images/anorexic_model-190x300.jpg

I want to feed her not fuck her

[Property Is Robbery]

Some of the Black Panthers had a great goal. Far from all. And an organisation that falls apart only because its leader dies doesn't sound like it had very strong community roots or effective democratic decision-making.

That's because it didn't fall apart when Huey died. It fell apart because the FBI and COINTELPRO murdered several members and arrested many others, any time a Panther became pretty influential, they were killed.

[Property Is Robbery]

You're not fighting for gender equality. That's like saying that nationalists are fighting for national equality.


That's dumb

[Quail]

Firstly, I didn't say that women aren't oppressed or treated poorly. That would be stupid. I said only that men are oppressed and treated poorly too, in different ways. And that there are also benefits, not only to being a gender-man, but to being a gender-woman.

While men are oppressed by the capitalist system (which I don't deny), that doesn't mean that women aren't more oppressed because of the patriarchal nature of our society.


Secondly, according to her sectarian logic, she would be unable, by virtue of her genitals, to dispute at all the suggestion that men are oppressed by a matriarchy. I really don't think that she wants to go there.
If we lived in a matriarchal society, it would be different. I don't think that we should live in a matriarchy. We should have gender equality.


Thirdly, that wasn't all she was saying: she was positing the existence of a "patriarchy".
That's because our society is patriarchal. I don't understand how you can't see that. Women are discriminated against, and that is a fact. You're utterly deluded if you think otherwise.

[Widerstand]

While men are oppressed by the capitalist system (which I don't deny), that doesn't mean that women aren't more oppressed because of the patriarchal nature of our society.

I just think the whole notion that only women suffer from patriarchy should be done away with. Yes, patriarchy is a men-centered system that is oppressive towards women. However, what patriarchy primarily is, is a system of gender norms - failure to conform to these norms bears negative consequences for women (obvious example would be the beauty standard) and men (obvious example: homosexuals), alike. As such it would be delusional to say that "feminism" (which really is anti-patriarchal and not, as some suggest, pro-matriarchal) is a solely female concern. To be fair, there are feminists with that attitude, often under the cover that men concerned with feminism are "patronizing" - some certainly are, but failure to involve men in feminist struggles can only lead to division, if not antagonism followed by a heavy rollback. Many men feel strongly alienated by the feminist movement, not because they don't want to give up their privilege, although in some cases that may be the reason, but because the feminist movement is indeed highly sectarian and parts of it are strongly antagonistic. Certainly, women-only groups have every right to exist and are a good thing, but, especially within leftist groupings, mixed gender feminist dialogue and work is heavily needed to fight inner-leftist sexism - not in an antagonistic sense, but in a sense of helping each other identify their sexist beliefs and behaviors and helping them change, and of course in finding and eliminating sexist structures in the organisation itself.

In regards to the discussion I sparked earlier: I definitely agree that homophobia and transphobia are not just based on a degradation of the feminine, but rather are mostly based on rejection of deviation. However, it is noteworthy than lesbians are far more accepted than gays. In any case, Transphobia and homophobia are most certainly based on patriarchal gender roles.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-and-origin-t144279/index.html

Start there^ Read and understand Marxist Feminism or Materialist Feminism. There are various types of feminism from liberal to radical to Marxist and materialist. The proper outlook for any revolutionary should be Marxist or Materialist Feminism.


Once you understand the roots of patriarchy you'll see why it's so important for each human to have equal access/control over the means of production. Women in modern western civilization still do not appreciate equal access to the means of production. None of us enjoy equal control.

[Manic Impressive]

Why do some women seem to enjoy patriarchy?

Is the answer to that question patriarchy?

[Widerstand]

Why do some women seem to enjoy patriarchy?

Is the answer to that question patriarchy?

I find this often be the case with liberal "feminists." It's quite absurd, really. I've known a girl that would argue that women deserve equal rights and all but also argue that men should be "strong", rational, should buy the women gifts and should work instead women, and that women are naturally more emotional. Made for some of the most perplexing positions I ever heard.

[Amphictyonis]

Why do some women seem to enjoy patriarchy?

Is the answer to that question patriarchy?

The same reason many workers seem to enjoy wage slavery- stockholm syndrome.

[Rafiq]

The problem may not focus on the treatment of women politically,

But Culturally, women are treated sub-human.

Women are treated as objects of Sex, as second class citizens in Western Culture.

No matter how much "Laws" they pass to give equally, attitudes toward women are disgusting.

That's the focus of Feminists.

[Manic Impressive]

I find this often be the case with liberal "feminists." It's quite absurd, really. I've known a girl that would argue that women deserve equal rights and all but also argue that men should be "strong", rational, should buy the women gifts and should work instead women, and that women are naturally more emotional. Made for some of the most perplexing positions I ever heard.
inorite I'm always being told I'm not possessive enough

[Meridian]

However, consider the fact that male-to-female trans people are discriminated more than female-to-male trans people,
Do you have a source on that?

Trans people in general face a special form of discrimination, and male-to-female and female-to-male different forms as well. Even if it is true the former is usually more severe, this doesn't tell us that it is because of a 'devaluation of everything feminine'.


and "effeminate" gay people are discriminated more than straight-looking masculine gay people,
Most definitely, which was what I was saying. Similarly, lesbians (and females in general, actually) appearing "too masculine" are discriminated a lot more than lesbians who are feminine and "straight-looking".


so part of the discrimination is indeed related to the fact that "feminine" things are generally valued less than "masculine" things in class society.
True or not, it does not follow.


Also, historically, significant LGBT discrimination only began to emerge in patriarchal chiefdom and later class societies. During the era of matriarchal primitive communism, there was little LGBT discrimination. So sexism and LGBT discrimination are intrinsically linked.
A matriarchal society would be a sexist society, like a patriarchal society. "The era of matriarchal primitive communism", I am not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds interesting. How do we know these (I guess, ancient) societies were matriarchal? I also think sexism and LGBT discrimination is linked, mind you.


What you said about "transsexuals and homosexuals are discriminated against ... because it goes against the norm for men" only makes sense for homosexuals, but does not make sense at all for transsexuals.
Well, I used a dot between the two sentences you quoted... But anyway, sorry about unclear language. What I meant was that it is because it goes against the norm for the gender others perceive one to be.


Male-to-female transsexuals are not men, they are women, so how are they affected by "what is considered to be normal for men"? Unless you think "trans-women aren't really women".
No, male-to-female women can be affected by various forms of discrimination including that which generally affects transsexuals and, in cases, that which is connected to norms for women and probably in other cases that which is connected to norms for men.


And how would your idea here fit in with female-to-male trans-sexuals? They are not discriminated because it goes against the norm for men, but rather the precise opposite, because people refuse to consider them as men and therefore consider them to be not normal relative to what women should be like.
I don't think this is my idea, I think this is what people generally consider sexual discrimination to be.

Anyways, yes female-to-male transsexuals can be discriminated for various reasons. But I absolutely agree with you in that they are generally discriminated because people consider them not-normal relative to what women should be like. In fact, this was the point of "my idea", as you called it.

[Quail]

I just think the whole notion that only women suffer from patriarchy should be done away with. Yes, patriarchy is a men-centered system that is oppressive towards women. However, what patriarchy primarily is, is a system of gender norms - failure to conform to these norms bears negative consequences for women (obvious example would be the beauty standard) and men (obvious example: homosexuals), alike. As such it would be delusional to say that "feminism" (which really is anti-patriarchal and not, as some suggest, pro-matriarchal) is a solely female concern. To be fair, there are feminists with that attitude, often under the cover that men concerned with feminism are "patronizing" - some certainly are, but failure to involve men in feminist struggles can only lead to division, if not antagonism followed by a heavy rollback. Many men feel strongly alienated by the feminist movement, not because they don't want to give up their privilege, although in some cases that may be the reason, but because the feminist movement is indeed highly sectarian and parts of it are strongly antagonistic. Certainly, women-only groups have every right to exist and are a good thing, but, especially within leftist groupings, mixed gender feminist dialogue and work is heavily needed to fight inner-leftist sexism - not in an antagonistic sense, but in a sense of helping each other identify their sexist beliefs and behaviors and helping them change, and of course in finding and eliminating sexist structures in the organisation itself.

In regards to the discussion I sparked earlier: I definitely agree that homophobia and transphobia are not just based on a degradation of the feminine, but rather are mostly based on rejection of deviation. However, it is noteworthy than lesbians are far more accepted than gays. In any case, Transphobia and homophobia are most certainly based on patriarchal gender roles.

I agree that it's not just women that are affected by patriarchy, however women are generally treated worse under patriarchy than men. Anyone who feels they have to conform to a gender norm is a victim of patriarchy. Patriarchy is more oppressive to people who aren't "masculine" men than anyone else, though, which should be acknowledged.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Morning, comrades! The discussion has branched out into other axes of discrimination - as is natural, since feminism and the "patriarchy" are not the be-all and end-all that feminists claim them to be - but I want to focus here on the points raised specifically about feminism and the looming patriarchal cabal.



Once you understand the roots of patriarchy you'll see why it's so important for each human to have equal access/control over the means of production.This is completely the wrong way round. It's the understanding of class society that leads to the right perspective on gender differences. Again, an example of how feminism pollutes socialism in the same way that nationalism does, by making sectarian concerns epistemically prior to an understanding of class society.



While men are oppressed by the capitalist system (which I don't deny), that doesn't mean that women aren't more oppressed because of the patriarchal nature of our society.Being oppressed should not be a competition. "I'm more oppressed!" "No, I'm more oppressed!" It's silly and divisive and gets in the way of working class unity.



If we lived in a matriarchal society, it would be different.So, men aren't allowed to comment on women's oppression but women are allowed to comment on men's, just because you are unilaterally declaring yourself to be more oppressed, by this sinister "patriarchal" conspiracy? That's not even remotely a socialist point.



That's because our society is patriarchal. I don't understand how you can't see that. Women are discriminated against, and that is a fact. You're utterly deluded if you think otherwise.Everybody's discriminated against. Women have no monopoly on that. By focussing on gender and making-believe that there's a conspiracy that's out to get specifically you, you undermine the socialist cause of working class solidarity.



I agree that it's not just women that are affected by patriarchy, however women are generally treated worse under patriarchy than men. Anyone who feels they have to conform to a gender norm is a victim of patriarchy. Patriarchy is more oppressive to people who aren't "masculine" men than anyone else, though, which should be acknowledged.People who fill the role of "masculine" men - I note that you talk about masculinity almost as if it's an insult, yet another example of the inherent sexism in much of the feminist movement - are the most likely of any group to suffer physical violence, work the most dangerous and physically-demanding jobs, and have the lowest life expectancy. These men are not conspirators in a global cabal, but are instead oppressed workers and comrades. This actually ties into another dangerous strand in liberal-left thought, of which feminism is a core branch: elitist intellectual revulsion at the physicality and vitality of the lives of working class men and women.

[Quail]

Being oppressed should not be a competition. "I'm more oppressed!" "No, I'm more oppressed!" It's silly and divisive and gets in the way of working class unity.

It's not a competition at all, but you can't honestly think we should ignore the fact that certain subsets of workers have a significant disadvantage in society based on an accident of birth?


So, men aren't allowed to comment on women's oppression but women are allowed to comment on men's, just because you are unilaterally declaring yourself to be more oppressed, by this sinister "patriarchal" conspiracy? That's not even remotely a socialist point.
When did I say that men aren't allowed to comment on women's oppression? They can comment, and indeed be a part of the feminist movement. Feminists want gender equality which doesn't at all exclude men from contributing.



Everybody's discriminated against. Women have no monopoly on that. By focussing on gender and making-believe that there's a conspiracy that's out to get specifically you, you undermine the socialist cause of working class solidarity.

You do realise that it's possible to combat sexism alongside capitalism, right?


People who fill the role of "masculine" men - I note that you talk about masculinity almost as if it's an insult, yet another example of the inherent sexism in much of the feminist movement - are the most likely of any group to suffer physical violence, work the most dangerous and physically-demanding jobs, and have the lowest life expectancy. These men are not conspirators in a global cabal, but are instead oppressed workers and comrades. This actually ties into another dangerous strand in liberal-left thought, of which feminism is a core branch: elitist intellectual revulsion at the physicality and vitality of the lives of working class men and women.
I put masculine in quotation marks because I was talking about the men that fill the traditional male role, not because I see it as an insult. Feminism is about gender equality, and not sexist (although the amount of times I've said that, it seems I must be talking to a brick wall). I understand that the working class are all oppressed, blah blah, but that doesn't mean that sexism doesn't exist and that we shouldn't fight it.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

It's not a competition at all, but you can't honestly think we should ignore the fact that certain subsets of workers have a significant disadvantage in society based on an accident of birth?Both men and women have significant advantages and disadvantages in society. The only people (on the left) who ignore this are the feminists. I would very much like for you to turn that question back and ask yourself why you ignore men's suffering and oppression to the point of identifying yourself in a way that explicitly excludes them. I don't identify as an Englishist just because there are oppressed people here in England.



When did I say that men aren't allowed to comment on women's oppression? They can comment, and indeed be a part of the feminist movement. Feminists want gender equality which doesn't at all exclude men from contributing.You said that I should try being a woman before saying that the patriarchy doesn't exist. Since I can't really try being a woman, that means that you are pronouncing me incapable of ever disputing the existence of this patriarchal conspiracy that you see everywhere. You only think that men can comment if they agree with what you say. In fairness to you, it was WeAreReborn who said outright, "She was just saying you can't say they aren't oppressed or treated poorly as a group when you aren't a part of that group."



You do realise that it's possible to combat sexism alongside capitalism, right?More than that, it's only possible to combat "sexism" by overthrowing class society *nod of thanks to Iseul's clarification*. What it's not possible to do is to overthrow class society while picking a particular section of humanity, arbitrarily distinguished by their genitals, and claim that they need to be fast-tracked.



I put masculine in quotation marks because I was talking about the men that fill the traditional male role, not because I see it as an insult. Feminism is about gender equality, and not sexist (although the amount of times I've said that, it seems I must be talking to a brick wall). I understand that the working class are all oppressed, blah blah, but that doesn't mean that sexism doesn't exist and that we shouldn't fight it.Anyone who calls themself a "feminist" is stating up front that they believe that women are so much more oppressed than other groups, especially men, that there needs to be a movement dedicated just to them. If you were really about equality and ending all oppression, you'd use a neutral term, and you'd give up the claims for special prioritisation of women.

------

This all comes down to manic's very astute question: "Why do some women seem to enjoy patriarchy?" The answer is that there is no patriarchy, only an inter-linked and overlapping system of advantages and disadvantages for various delineated groups in society, including the two conventional genders based on biological sex, and that just as there are privileges and advantages for men, there are also privileges and advantages for women. Instead of seeing the whole picture of advantages and disadvantages for both men and women, feminists insist (like all chauvinistic ideologues) on seeing only the advantages of the eternal Other juxtaposed with their own disadvantages.

[Quail]

Both men and women have significant advantages and disadvantages in society. The only people (on the left) who ignore this are the feminists. I would very much like for you to turn that question back and ask yourself why you ignore men's suffering and oppression to the point of identifying yourself in a way that explicitly excludes them. I don't identify as an Englishist just because there are oppressed people here in England.

Is sexism against men the norm? No.
Did I ever say men can't be feminists and fight for gender equality? No.
The "Englishist" comparison is stupid since there is no institutionalised discrimination against English people so it is not necessary to fight for equality.


You said that I should try being a woman before saying that the patriarchy doesn't exist. Since I can't really try being a woman, that means that you are pronouncing me incapable of ever disputing the existence of this patriarchal conspiracy that you see everywhere. You only think that men can comment if they agree with what you say. In fairness to you, it was WeAreReborn who said outright, "She was just saying you can't say they aren't oppressed or treated poorly as a group when you aren't a part of that group."

What I was actually trying to get across is that it's easy to say that patriarchy doesn't exist or isn't so bad when you're benefiting from it. There are of course men who fight against patriarchy, so I said nothing about the ability of men in general to understand patriarchy. You're just a sexist pig who can't see past his own male privelige. I've noticed that your misogyny isn't just confined to this thread, either.


More than that, it's only possible to combat "sexism" by overthrowing class society *nod of thanks to Iseul's clarification*. What it's not possible to do is to overthrow class society while picking a particular section of humanity, arbitrarily distinguished by their genitals, and claim that they need to be fast-tracked.

So we shouldn't bother trying to change people's attitudes towards women, we should just wait for the revolution? Tell that to a woman in Ireland who can't get an abortion, or a woman in a short skirt who gets her arse slapped by a stranger.


Anyone who calls themself a "feminist" is stating up front that they believe that women are so much more oppressed than other groups, especially men, that there needs to be a movement dedicated just to them. If you were really about equality and ending all oppression, you'd use a neutral term, and you'd give up the claims for special prioritisation of women.

Well, I'm so sorry for wanting to challenge the sexist attitudes against me in society. Historically women have been oppressed by men, and unfortunately some of those attitudes still remain. Women have many gains yet to make, and until women are equals in society, there will always be a need for feminism.

[Jazzratt]

This all comes down to manic's very astute question: "Why do some women seem to enjoy patriarchy?" The answer is that there is no patriarchy, only an inter-linked and overlapping system of advantages and disadvantages for various delineated groups in society, including the two conventional genders based on biological sex, and that just as there are privileges and advantages for men, there are also privileges and advantages for women. Instead of seeing the whole picture of advantages and disadvantages for both men and women, feminists insist (like all chauvinistic ideologues) on seeing only the advantages of the eternal Other juxtaposed with their own disadvantages. It's funny really that this system of interlinking advantages and disadvantages gives far more advantages to one group then the other. When viewed in the whole I mean and not through whatever cracked lens you're using. I mean, it's certainly easier to get along as a man and the disadvantages one suffers as a man don't seem as numerous as those for being a woman. Quite a lot of those disadvantages also seem related to an expectation for a man to take a traditional masculine role. I mean it all looks a lot like a patriarchy, but obviously you as the self-appointed expert of women's struggles and problems know something we must have missed. Either that or you're an idiot pointing at something that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, adamantly insisting it's a fucking goose.

[Queercommie Girl]

Do you have a source on that?


If you look at the most serious cases of transphobia, such as murder, you will see that it affects MtFs more than it affects FtMs.



Trans people in general face a special form of discrimination, and male-to-female and female-to-male different forms as well. Even if it is true the former is usually more severe, this doesn't tell us that it is because of a 'devaluation of everything feminine'.


"Special" but certainly not unrelated to sexism and homophobia at all. "Trans separatism" is a ridiculous BS ideology.

So what is your explanation for the fact that MtFs suffer more severe discrimination than FtMs? There must be some kind of explanation, it can't just be "random".

Also, generally in society, people tend to frown less when women try "traditionally masculine" things than when men try "traditionally feminine" things. You'd probably be more concerned if your young son starts to wear make-up than if your young daughter starts to play in the mud with the boys. Why is this?



Most definitely, which was what I was saying. Similarly, lesbians (and females in general, actually) appearing "too masculine" are discriminated a lot more than lesbians who are feminine and "straight-looking".


However, on the whole lesbians suffer less discrimination than gays. Why is this?



A matriarchal society would be a sexist society, like a patriarchal society. "The era of matriarchal primitive communism", I am not sure what you mean by this, but it sounds interesting. How do we know these (I guess, ancient) societies were matriarchal?


It's not the same. Perhaps the word "matriarchal" is not so accurate, it should probably be "matri-lineal", i.e. when "family lines" are passed down the female line, due to women's central role in reproduction, rather than down the male line like today.

In matrilineal societies, there is no systematic discrimination against men at all, unlike in patrilineal societies where there is definitely some kind of systematic discrimination against women in general. The two are not "symmetrical".

There is plenty of archaeological and anthropological evidence for the existence of matrilineal societies in the distant past. Read for instance Engels' Origins of the Family.



Well, I used a dot between the two sentences you quoted... But anyway, sorry about unclear language. What I meant was that it is because it goes against the norm for the gender others perceive one to be.


To not perceive a trans-woman as a woman but rather as a man is itself a form of transphobia, and the same applies for trans-men.



No, male-to-female women can be affected by various forms of discrimination including that which generally affects transsexuals and, in cases, that which is connected to norms for women and probably in other cases that which is connected to norms for men.


Transwomen are not men, so how can they be directly affected to that "which is connected to norms for men"?



Anyways, yes female-to-male transsexuals can be discriminated for various reasons. But I absolutely agree with you in that they are generally discriminated because people consider them not-normal relative to what women should be like. In fact, this was the point of "my idea", as you called it.


The issue here is that trans-men are not women, so the fact that people discriminated against them because they consider them to be "not-normal relative to what women should be like" is a case of transphobia - i.e. refusing to acknowledge that trans-men are actually men, rather than something to do with discrimination due to "rigid gender norms" in society in general.

[Queercommie Girl]

How on earth can you quantify every aspect of oppression into statistics that "prove" one gender's greater degree of oppression? Oppression is not just a question of bean-counting personal income.


It's easy. Just look at the income disparity between men and women. And yes oppression to a large extent is a question of personal income, since for Marxists "base determines superstructure". To focus on income disparity makes far more sense than to focus on vague notions of "cultural discrimination" or whatever.



It's a much deeper social phenomenon that covers things that you can't boil down to a definitive statistic. This is a major part of why I am opposed to describing one worker's oppression as "better" or "worse" than another's: we should be fighting to end oppression entirely through wholesale revolution, not picking, in bourgeois-liberal manner, one or two areas where we politely ask for reform because we have prepared "statistics" on them.


Social discrimination is ultimately rooted in economic disparity, that's Marxism 101. And yes, some sections of workers are more heavily oppressed than others, that's an objective fact. You must be out of your mind to think that Chinese miners toiling under slavery-like conditions in some semi-illegal mines in China today are exploited just as much as a white-collar US worker working for Microsoft. As I said, not all workers are "the same", so "working class unity" is not just some utopian and abstract slogan one can imposed on reality. Sometimes the conflicts between different sections of workers can exceed the conflicts between workers and capitalists. The real world is much more complex than your abstract dogmatism.



Bothering to state up-front that you're against Western imperialism implies that you think that it's "worse" than the domestic despotism, as if being oppressed isn't so bad so long as you share a skin colour and a language with your oppressors.


You sound like racism is not an issue either, just like you think sexism is not an issue, that's ridiculous.

Yes, sometimes it is indeed worse. Example: The slavery empires of the Aztecs and the Incas were extremely oppressive, they were based on religious human sacrifice. But at least the slaves did not suffer genocide. When the Spanish came, the slavery system more-or-less remained, but in many places the native population suffered either direct or indirect genocide, which was even worse than what they endured before.

Also, often Western imperialism is fundamentally linked to domestic despotic regimes through the comparador capitalist class, so it is utterly wrong to see them as really separate. E.g. KMT China was a despotic regime that was directly backed up by US imperialism. So is the theocracy in Saudi Arabia today.



I agree with this completely, except that I think you misunderstand "hard-headed" as "cruel", whereas I mean that we should keep our minds on the reality of the situation and not on the seductions of identity politics.


"Identity politics" is just a buzz word. In the concrete sense, there is absolutely nothing wrong with "identity politics" if it refers to a person affirming his/her identity faced with direct discrimination based on that identity. E.g. a Chinese person affirming his/her Chinese identity when encountering racism against Chinese people.



My complaint is that feminism is exactly "an abstract, rigid, dogmatic and bureaucratic method". It has its dogma of the victimhood of women and the conspiracy of men, and it blinkers its adherents in how they approach every other issue.


There are different types of "feminism". Socialist feminism does not blame men intrinsically or in general, so it is not "abstract" or "dogmatic" at all. It focuses on real empirical data on the ground, and fights against sexism towards women in that way.



The way I read this, you're agreeing with me ... You think that women do suffer in specific ways that are different to men, but that the idea of a "patriarchy" is overblown. If you add in that there are also particular issues that are faced by men alone then I really don't see where you're disagreeing with me, except that you are more forgiving towards nationalism and genderism in the socialist movement than I want to be.


Difference is that although men also suffer from specific issues, they do not suffer from sexism directed at them from women, whereas women do in many cases.

In fact, many men are also oppressed under the patriarchal system as it stands now. The biggest oppressors of men are usually other men, just like the biggest oppressors of white people are usually other white people.

And no, I don't agree with your idea of dismissing the reality of sexism in the world today.

[Agapi]

However, on the whole lesbians suffer less discrimination than gays. Why is this? Why in the world do you believe this? Lesbians face all of the problems that gay men face and more, considering that they have go through all of the difficulties that come with being born female as well. Not to mention the phenomenon of erasure, unique to females (i.e. lesbians don't really exist).
Transwomen are not men, so how can they be directly affected to that &quot;which is connected to norms for men&quot;? Relax. Gender itself is performative and imposed by sexist society at large. Transwomen are definitely policed into the category of "men", and the discrimination we face largely arises from daring to step outside of that box.

[Red Commissar]

Why do some women seem to enjoy patriarchy?

Is the answer to that question patriarchy?


I find this often be the case with liberal "feminists." It's quite absurd, really. I've known a girl that would argue that women deserve equal rights and all but also argue that men should be "strong", rational, should buy the women gifts and should work instead women, and that women are naturally more emotional. Made for some of the most perplexing positions I ever heard.

I'm not sure about elsewhere, but there is an interesting position taken by women here. There's almost been a rejection of the principles of feminism by some women because of the way they perceived feminist goals. I've seen many misinterpret those goals of economic, social, and political equality between the sexes, and simply say "what if it is my choice to be a housewife!". It's common with attempts by the ruling class to discredit opposing ideologies by immediately falling back on the family, and how *insert ideology* would harm that.

I think this came to bear in the US with Phyllis Schlafly and her drive to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from passing. Interestingly when confronted with the hypocrisy of her attempts to defeat such a measure, she tried to justify it with by saying that such a provisional would eliminate Social Security and Tax benefits for housewives and widows or something along those lines.

[red cat]

Might be a bit off-topic. Nowadays women regularly wear what used to be worn only by men, but does it ever happen the other way ? Does it indicate which among gay men and women are more tolerated by patriarchy ?

[Noinu]

Might be a bit off-topic. Nowadays women regularly wear what used to be worn only by men, but does it ever happen the other way ? Does it indicate which among gay men and women are more tolerated by patriarchy ?

I know quite a few guys who wear skirts regularly, and I haven't heard any of them complain of people not tolerating it.

[red cat]

I know quite a few guys who wear skirts regularly, and I haven't heard any of them complain of people not tolerating it.

How many are these guys in number compared to all women who regularly wear pants?

[Noinu]

How many are these guys in number compared to all women who regularly wear pants?

Not a lot. Then again, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to give any ratios on that, since most of my friends who are girls, also regularly wear skirts, not pants...