Feminism and "Beauty" and "Sexuality"

[Eagle_Syr]

This is sort of an offshoot from the Lara Croft thread.

Does feminism mean all concepts of femininity and beauty need to be forgotten?

I have always thought that feminism meant support for female rights and equality in the work place and before the law. But despite our equality, men and women are not the same. We shouldn't be afraid of embracing this fact.

The human body is sexual; it has beauty, and it can be artistically portrayed with ideal forms. Why does feminism mean both men and women cannot be admired aesthetically?

[Luc]

men and women arent that different just sayin'

but to the point i think most feminists critique the harmful and impossible beauty standards(or "ideal forms" as they really arent that ideal...) as they exist currently and also critique objectification

not attacking anyone who has a sexuality

[Quail]

Men and women aren't really that different, but the roles "men" and "women" are meant to take in society are different. Gender roles are socially constructed and it's worth noting that not only are there people who define themselves as male and female who don't identify with traditional roles, there are also many people who exist outside the male/female binary.

The problem with the idealised models of beauty as they exist today is that they're heavily influenced by patriarchal gender roles. For example, the "ideal" man has big, well-defined muscles and is basically a caricature of what is considered "manly" - for example:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSblmCf3b7rPJ49VqOT21hRD2gxnAOqs JBFbvAf2QY5rsnucru9cg

The ideas about how women (in particular, but also men to a lesser extent) should look mean that women are told to strive for unattainable bodies. The beauty industry exploits this and gives women insecurities that make them feel they are unattractive without buying their products. Having an idealised version of a "perfect" woman is very harmful in a capitalist society, but I don't think it's particularly healthy in any circumstance. People are all different and nobody will ever live up to an ideal. It's unfair to impose unattainable beauty standards on anybody, and unhealthy (mentally and physically) to strive for the unattainable.

There is nothing about feminism that means that women and men can't both be appreciated aesthetically. I'm a bisexual feminist and I appreciate people who are beautiful - though beauty is subjective, so what I find beautiful others may not and vice-versa (another reason why the idea of an "ideal" person is unhelpful). There is a difference though between admiring someone aesthetically and making them a sexual object. I find that a lot of young men seem to have a sense of entitlement when it comes to women they find attractive. They get offended when they're rejected. They expect women to accept and indulge their advances. This is because of the patriarchal society in which we live, and it's something that needs to change.

[Eagle_Syr]

While it is true that impossible standards cannot ever be attained, it is appropriate if an individual tries their best to look their best; and it is appropriate to admire them aesthetically and sexually.

As far as gender roles go, as long as they are not enforced, I also don't see a problem with them.

[mew]

i think you should try to learn more about feminism... third wave feminism is generally pro-femininity, pro-sex, pro-"beauty", but it also means looking at those things with a critical eye and analyzing how these things have been distorted under patriarchy in a way that is harmful and oppressive to women, and also done for the benefit of men rather than women. And things like how femininity and beauty aren't just "nice," but are an actual mandate for women in society.

[Quail]

While it is true that impossible standards cannot ever be attained, it is appropriate if an individual tries their best to look their best; and it is appropriate to admire them aesthetically and sexually.
What exactly do you mean by this? I personally try to look my best by keeping myself clean and my hair tidy, but if you held me up to the beauty standards promoted by, say, cosmo magazine I'd fall well short. (No make-up? Unshaven underarms? Get that girl a makeover!) Who decides what trying one's best to look their best is exactly?


As far as gender roles go, as long as they are not enforced, I also don't see a problem with them.
The problem is that if gender roles and stereotypes exist, then they are enforced. Nobody lives in a vacuum; we are influenced by our surroundings. If it's the norm for women to do most of the housework and childcare (for example) then heterosexual men will grow up with the expectation that their partner will do most of the domestic labour and women will grow up feeling that it is their duty to do the domestic labour and so it will be hard to make progress. We internalise patriarchal messages all the time, both men and women. We have to examine ourselves and try to unpick a lifetime of social conditioning and it isn't easy.

[revolt]

Having an idealised version of a "perfect" woman is very harmful in a capitalist society, but I don't think it's particularly healthy in any circumstance.why do you think it's "very harmful" in a capitalist society, but you "don't think it's particularly healthy" in a theoretical non-capitalist society?

would cutting ones leg off with a hatchet be "very dangerous" in a capitalist society, and "possibly have negative effects" in a non-capitalist society?

[Deicide]

The problem with the idealised models of beauty as they exist today is that they're heavily influenced by patriarchal gender roles. For example, the "ideal" man has big, well-defined muscles and is basically a caricature of what is considered "manly" - for example:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSblmCf3b7rPJ49VqOT21hRD2gxnAOqs JBFbvAf2QY5rsnucru9cg



That guy is hardly that muscly, he's at a realistic stage most men should aim at, 9% or 10% body fat, purely for the health reasons.

This is muscly. And a caricature of ''manliness''.

http://gofitandhealthy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Coleman01.jpg

[Quail]

why do you think it's "very harmful" in a capitalist society, but you "don't think it's particularly healthy" in a theoretical non-capitalist society?

would cutting ones leg off with a hatchet be "very dangerous" in a capitalist society, and "possibly have negative effects" in a non-capitalist society?
It's especially harmful in a capitalist society because the beauty industry takes these unattainable ideals and exploits our insecurities to sell their products; in a hypothetical communist society this exploitation wouldn't happen because there would be no beauty industry.

[Quail]

That guy is hardly that muscly, he's at a stage most men should aim at, imo, purely for the health reasons.

Men's Health tends to have airbrushed muscly men on the cover and that was the first picture on google images. Some other examples:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUfQf5rYM1MOBON_-DBpcX6DW4WSxqMCUXIZCd27lEi5LA_TmhNwhttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxQFgkuNb-Ouich9KpZ571RwF23EjoBVXXQRv9WeFT4oTRpSib

Those abs just don't look real. IMO it's just as bad as Cosmo for promoting unattainable body shapes.

[Luc]

Men's Health tends to have airbrushed muscly men on the cover and that was the first picture on google images.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUfQf5rYM1MOBON_-DBpcX6DW4WSxqMCUXIZCd27lEi5LA_TmhNwhttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxQFgkuNb-Ouich9KpZ571RwF23EjoBVXXQRv9WeFT4oTRpSib

IMO it's just as bad as Cosmo for promoting unattainable body shapes.

edit: ah nvm they are diffferent

also i agree with Quail... i think actually those abs are impossible to get cause it would require a seriously low body fat thats really unrealistic so a guy could be a big as that but not as "chiseld"

[revolt]

It's especially harmful in a capitalist society because the beauty industry takes these unattainable ideals and exploits our insecurities to sell their products; in a hypothetical communist society this exploitation wouldn't happen because there would be no beauty industry.the economic system in which people attain beauty products doesn't effect the physical and mental health issues surrounding the concept of a perfect women.

you said that having an idealized vision of a perfect women is very harmful in a capitalist society specifically. is having an idealized vision of a perfect woman in a non-capitalist society less harmful?

[Deicide]

The first picture you linked is nothing special and is not unrealistic. Such a body can attained by pretty much anyone willing to workout and eat properly for 1 - 3 years. Although I bet it has been photoshopped to make him appear more ripped.

Look at this guys abs, now these are only attainable with lucky genetics and steroids, but also by working out and eating properly. It's an unrealistic example for most people to achieve. But damn, he looks good.

http://trenace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/zyzz-steroids1.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_opkI5kI1V_M/TSBsrgc13cI/AAAAAAAAADs/WUI0Tx6Gqx0/s1600/zyzz.jpg

[Quail]

the economic system in which people attain beauty products doesn't effect the physical and mental health issues surrounding the concept of a perfect women.

you said that having an idealized vision of a perfect women is very harmful in a capitalist society specifically. is having an idealized vision of a perfect woman in a non-capitalist society less harmful?
I just explained why I think it's more harmful, because the beauty industry uses the idealised "perfect" person to manipulate people into buying their products, and so it is in their interests to maintain and amplify people's insecurities.

In a hypothetical communist society, the beauty industry wouldn't exist, and it wouldn't be in the interests of the general population to make ourselves as miserable as possible about our bodies and then produce a shitload of useless products to "fix" ourselves.

[revolt]

I just explained why I think it's more harmful, because the beauty industry uses the idealised "perfect" person to manipulate people into buying their products, and so it is in their interests to maintain and amplify people's insecurities. In a hypothetical communist society, the beauty industry wouldn't exist, and it wouldn't be in the interests of the general population to make ourselves as miserable as possible about our bodies and then produce a shitload of useless products to "fix" ourselves.so you're saying there would not be an idealized vision of a perfect woman. that is much different from saying that an idealized vision of a perfect woman would be less harmful in itself in a non-capitalist society.

[Quail]

The first picture you linked is nothing special and is not unrealistic. Such a body can attained by pretty much anyone willing to workout and eat properly for 1 - 3 years.

The specific picture I posted isn't really the point, to be honest, and arguing over that distracts from the actual debate.

Also, for a lot of men who don't have time to live in the gym (you know, if they have jobs, families or whatever) extremely well built and defined muscles are effectively unattainable.

[Quail]

so you're saying there would not be an idealized vision of a perfect woman. that is much different from saying that an idealized vision of a perfect woman would be less harmful in itself in a non-capitalist society.
There wouldn't really be a purpose for the endless promotion of an unattainable idealised body.

However if there was, there would be no beauty industry to exploit our insecurities and make it more of a problem.

It's always unhealthy to chase an unattainable ideal - I already said that. However, I think that the beauty industry contributes to the problem because it serves their interests - they make their profit by promoting an unattainable ideal, by telling people that they're ugly unless they buy products to fix themselves.

[Deicide]

Also, for a lot of men who don't have time to live in the gym (you know, if they have jobs, families or whatever) extremely well built and defined muscles are effectively unattainable.

Obviously people with six packs don't have jobs, they don't study and they don't have family or/and romantic commitments.

[revolt]

There wouldn't really be a purpose for the endless promotion of an unattainable idealised body.

However if there was, there would be no beauty industry to exploit our insecurities and make it more of a problem.

It's always unhealthy to chase an unattainable ideal - I already said that. However, I think that the beauty industry contributes to the problem because it serves their interests - they make their profit by promoting an unattainable ideal, by telling people that they're ugly unless they buy products to fix themselves.you are not responding to what my post actually says and jumping to conclusions about what my opinions are that I haven't actually expressed.

[Thirsty Crow]

While it is true that impossible standards cannot ever be attained, it is appropriate if an individual tries their best to look their best; and it is appropriate to admire them aesthetically and sexually.

I think you underestimate the fact that alongisde this narrative of "look your best" there is real, tnagible aspect of derision which takes its toll on those people who are judged as lacking in this area.

[Quail]

That's a silly thing to say.
How is that silly? The reality is that a lot of men don't really have time to get really ripped. They have to work, look after their families, etc. Promoting a body that takes hours in the gym every week as an ideal is unrealistic for a lot of people.

[Deicide]

How is that silly? The reality is that a lot of men don't really have time to get really ripped. They have to work, look after their families, etc. Promoting a body that takes hours in the gym every week as an ideal is unrealistic for a lot of people.

I didn't know that men with sixpacks have no jobs, family commitments, study commitments, romantic commitments, etc. They must be aliens from Mars.

[Quail]

you are not responding to what my post actually says and jumping to conclusions about what my opinions are that I haven't actually expressed.


you said that having an idealized vision of a perfect women is very harmful in a capitalist society specifically. is having an idealized vision of a perfect woman in a non-capitalist society less harmful?
I have answered this. I'm sick of repeating myself. An idealised idea of a "perfect" person is always bad, but the beauty industry in capitalism makes it worse as I said above.

I'm not going to respond again if you continue to ask the same question.

[Quail]

I didn't know that men with sixpacks have no jobs, family commitments, study commitments, romantic commitments, etc. They must be aliens from Mars.
Okay, I'm a woman, but say I wanted a body that took at least 5 hours of gym work a week. Between my study commitments and looking after my son, I simply don't have time to fit that in. Even if I did manage to find the time, I'd be too tired from doing everything else.

Besides, the images I posted are all highly fucking likely to be airbrushed, so they're fake images being promoted as something that is actually attainable.

[Deicide]

3 hours per week is enough aslong as you don't cheat on your workout and diet. And you don't have to go to the gym. Regular exercise actually raises your energy levels, mental concentration, mood levels, which increase your quality of life. Initially, if you havent exercised before or in a longtime, it will tire you out. Anyway, I'll stop ranting now.

[revolt]

it's not my fault that you keep on responding to something I asked once initially, and then clarified because you answered a similar but different question that I didnt ask, and then answered it again and again despite it being not necessary to do so. so don't blame me for you treating it as a repetitive question. you even treat post #15 as a repeat question which it was not at all. I'm sorry but it's not my fault you are repeating yourself because I'm not making you.

my point this whole entire time has been that an idealized vision of a perfect woman is always very harmful, regardless of whether or not this image exists in a capitalist society or a non-capitalist society. because while a capitalist society may promote it more, it is still the same fundamental harmful concept. you can argue that it won't exist anymore in a non-capitalist society, but if we are talking as if it will, which your initial post which I responded to left as a possibility, it would clearly still be very harmful.

[black magick hustla]

That guy is hardly that muscly, he's at a realistic stage most men should aim at, 9% or 10% body fat, purely for the health reasons.

except most men don't look like that

[black magick hustla]

lol you sound like every resentful meathead nerd that posts in bodybuilding forums. what the fuck is your problem

[Deicide]

lol you sound like every resentful meathead nerd that posts in bodybuilding forums. what the fuck is your problem

Don't cry mate, you seem a little bit upset.

[Quail]

3 hours per week is enough aslong as you don't cheat on your workout and diet. And you don't have to go to the gym. Anyway, I'll stop ranting now.
Whatever. An airbrushed image of a man who spends hours a week buffing up is promoting a standard of "beauty" that is unattainable. That was my point.


my point this whole entire time has been that an idealized vision of a perfect woman is always very harmful, regardless of whether or not this image exists in a capitalist society or a non-capitalist society. because while a capitalist society may promote it more, it is still the same fundamental harmful concept. you can argue that it won't exist anymore in a non-capitalist society, but if we are talking as if it will, which your initial post which I responded to left as a possibility, it would clearly still be very harmful.
...which is what I said originally:

Having an idealised version of a "perfect" woman is very harmful in a capitalist society, but I don't think it's particularly healthy in any circumstance. People are all different and nobody will ever live up to an ideal. It's unfair to impose unattainable beauty standards on anybody, and unhealthy (mentally and physically) to strive for the unattainable.

[black magick hustla]

Don't cry mate.

nice try, "mate". doesn't stop you from being an ass for being willfully dense, and avoiding a really non-controversial observation that people in health magazines have unrealistic looks for most people.

[black magick hustla]

Seems like someone took a shit in your bigmac.

lol, you know whats funny, i probably do the same shit than you cuz' i also like lifting weights. i just don't tolerate the shitty patronizing opinions of nerdbros in that scene who feel entitled on shitting on other people's lifestyles just cuz they feel resentful that they couldn't get laid before, or because their lifestyle doesn't let them have beer cuz' they rather go eat a pound of chicken than go to the pub

[Deicide]

lol, you know whats funny, i probably do the same shit than you cuz' i also like lifting weights. i just don't tolerate the shitty patronizing opinions of nerdbros in that scene who feel entitled on shitting on other people's lifestyles just cuz they feel resentful that they couldn't get laid before

Awww, can't we just be buddies? p.s I've always been able to get laid ;)

[Agent Ducky]

Am I the only one who thinks that body-building taken to a certain extent is just straight-up gross?
Edit:
Okay, what the fuck is it with this culture that creates the logic of "Person is resentful, it's obviously because they can't get laid," and the subsequent exploitation of that logic to ridicule people based on their perceived lack of sexual prowess.
I really don't understand it.

[Deicide]

Am I the only one who thinks that body-building taken to a certain extent is just straight-up gross?

No. Once people get on juice it starts to look pretty vile. Especially guys like Jay Cutler. It's no longer for health benefits at that stage.. obviously but hey, it's their bodies. Look at the big black dude on the first page, he's way too big. Some massive guys like that actually think they're too small, lol.

[black magick hustla]

What the fuck is it with this culture that creates the logic of "Person is resentful, it's obviously because they can't get laid," and the subsequent exploitation of that logic to ridicule people based on their perceived lack of sexual prowess.
I really don't understand it.

its not even about "sexual prowess". i think a lot of like really mean/sexist men in the internet have deep-seated issues about women and hate them because they couldn't attract them and therefore they become resentful. i think in bodybuidling internet forums its like that, except with the added corollary that it includes people that aren't fit because they resent the fact that they have to spend so much time in the gym and taking care of what they eat, so they can't really empathize with people who aren't fit (also a lot of them started doing that for the girls). most people into that shit are huge nerds (like us) so the internet nerd analysis applies to them too \rant

[Tim Cornelis]

Now that we have went entirely off topic, this article is from this year's Dutch English exam. Quite interesting I'd say. (Ignore numbers, these are blanks that are supposed to be filled in).


Lads’ mags cause
obsession
by Jonathan Leake and Roger Waite
The Sunday Times, 2008
The laddish culture promoted by men’s
magazines has spawned a new medical
condition: athletica nervosa, or an
obsession with exercise.
New research shows that the
magazines may be trapping them into an
unhealthy obsession with their own
bodies. Some readers become so
anxious about their own physique that
they 18 excessive exercise, spending
hours running, swimming or in the gym.
Athletica nervosa is already known to
affect young women, but this is thought
to be the first British study to link the
phenomenon to men.
David Giles, a psychologist at
Winchester University, who co-wrote the
research, said: “We found that the more
such magazines a man reads the more
likely he is to be anxious about his
physique.” In the study, Giles and coauthor
Jessica Close carried out
interviews and surveys of 161 men aged
18-36 to find out how many lads’ mags
they read and for how long. They also
scored them for dietary habits, exercise
regimes and attitudes towards 19 .
“Men who read the most lads’ mags
seemed to internalise the appearance
ideals portrayed by them,” said Giles.
“Models in these magazines are
impossibly good-looking and seeing them
can make readers insecure about their
own bodies.” Recent features in lads’
mags targeted men’s 20 , with one
claiming that the right gym kit adds to a
man’s sex appeal, and another claiming
that superb physical fitness is the only
way to snare a good-looking girlfriend.
21 , single men are the most likely
to be influenced. Giles said: “All men who
read these magazines were affected, but
22 men much more so than those in
stable romantic relationships. It could be
that they become less anxious or it could
be they just have less time to go to the
gym when they have a partner. People
get their ideas of what they should look
like from the media and the amount of
imagery of men and women just keeps
growing. None of us is immune.”
A recent study by researchers at the
University of Florida showed that young
men’s beliefs about the perfect body
shape had changed over the past two
decades, moving towards a much more
23 ideal. Magdala Peixoto Labre,
who conducted the study, said:
“Adolescent males are increasingly
experiencing body dissatisfaction,
engaging in disordered eating and using
anabolic steroids and untested dietary
supplements to gain muscle. The
behaviour can have serious, long-term
health consequences.”
The emergence of athletica nervosa
comes despite 24 in some parts of
the lads’ mags sector. Loaded lost
47,000 sales, nearly 30% of its
circulation, recently. FHM lost 56,114
sales and Maxim 53,034. However, sales
of Men’s Health are stable.

[revolt]

...which is what I said originally:the entire concept still seems equally harmful to me.

pretty nit picky on my part though, I guess. sorry.


Some massive guys like that actually think they're too small, lol.I think the fact that this is pretty equivalent to the psychology of someone with an eating disorder is pretty interesting.

[Deicide]

I actually wouldn't mind being ''addicted'' to exercise. The Endorphin rush is a pretty nice feeling anyway :cool: It's better than being addicted to alcohol, cigs, and other drugs, etc.

[Agent Ducky]

I actually wouldn't mind being ''addicted'' to exercise. The Endorphin rush is a pretty nice feeling anyway :cool: It's better than being addicted to alcohol, cigs, and other drugs, etc.

You wouldn't "mind" having a condition that's on par with anorexia?
:blink: Okay then...

[Prometeo liberado]

nice try, "mate". doesn't stop you from being an ass for being willfully dense, and avoiding a really non-controversial observation that people in health magazines have unrealistic looks for most people.

You do understand that your arguing with Decide don't you? Best to leave the children to their childish things.

[Deicide]

You do understand that your arguing with Decide don't you? Best to leave the children to their childish things.

If you're going to be mean at least don't misspell my username :blushing:

[Le Socialiste]

While it is true that impossible standards cannot ever be attained, it is appropriate if an individual tries their best to look their best; and it is appropriate to admire them aesthetically and sexually.

As far as gender roles go, as long as they are not enforced, I also don't see a problem with them.

How is that appropriate? If someone isn't as concerned with their appearance, why should they strive to look their best just to meet someone else's expectations?

The issue stems from how beauty has been defined, namely from a perspective that incorporates patriarchal stereotypes and unrealistic images. When you "admire" an individual's physical attributes because they happen to align with social convention you risk objectifying them, stripping them of all other importance save that of sexual/physical gratification. Social norms are dominated by a bias that is largely patriarchal in thought and form. We are raised to assess one's beauty on such a basis (we also arbitrarily divide men and women into specific categories that have no real grounding in nature). Women are subjected to images that tell them how to look 'flirty', 'toned', 'sexy', 'feminine', etc.; you wouldn't see an ad or article telling a man to look for the summer's "best flirty outfits" would you? Why not? Because it doesn't fit with the image that's been built up around male masculinity.

Quail's already gone into the profit-motivated definition of 'beauty', so I won't elaborate on it. I will say that women are pressured (more so than men) to go the extra mile in terms of appearance, and businesses play on those expectations to make a profit. Women are expected to work, manage the home (and, if applicable, a family), and look good doing it. I don't think I need to point out how gender roles have an adverse effect on women and men, and are harmful on a physical, emotional, mental, and socioeconomic level. To say it's appropriate to admire an individual's body based on their 'sexiness' or 'physical beauty' simply reinforces the idea that one must dress to please others, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Gender roles are around because they're enforced - if they weren't they wouldn't last long.

For instance, would you tell a woman who happens to possess what society deems the 'right breast size' that she should flaunt that fact because its pleasing on an aesthetic and sexual level? Should women be told to dress a particular way that 'accentuates' their bodies (fashions that have been made and pushed by men) simply because you think it looks nice? Do you see how this is wrong? It reduces one to their sex appeal, when people possess more than what is pleasing to the eye. To admire beauty is one thing - to tell people they should dress to emphasize said beauty because you like it is another.

[Eagle_Syr]

The problem is that if gender roles and stereotypes exist, then they are enforced. Nobody lives in a vacuum; we are influenced by our surroundings. If it's the norm for women to do most of the housework and childcare (for example) then heterosexual men will grow up with the expectation that their partner will do most of the domestic labour and women will grow up feeling that it is their duty to do the domestic labour and so it will be hard to make progress. We internalise patriarchal messages all the time, both men and women. We have to examine ourselves and try to unpick a lifetime of social conditioning and it isn't easy.

Not necessarily true. In many marriages, the women choose to take on the role of mother and housemaker voluntarily.

I am saying that if this is the case, I don't see a problem with it. Someone has to do it. It doesn't have to be the woman, but if it is, it doesn't mean it's oppressive.

Le Socialiste,

I'm not saying we should tell people that unless they meet our expectations, they are worthless. I am saying that if a woman does want to flaunt her looks and sexuality, then by all means, let her; and if it is done artistically or through whatever medium, why in the world is that wrong?

[revolt]

Not necessarily true. In many marriages, the women choose to take on the role of mother and housemaker voluntarily."enforced" does not refer to physical force as far as patriarchy in the western world goes.

[The Machine]

That guy is hardly that muscly, he's at a realistic stage most men should aim at, 9% or 10% body fat, purely for the health reasons.


unless you're a competitive bodybuilder you shouldn't care about bf percentage

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Have sex and relationships with whoever you personally find attractive, but there shouldn't be a 'standard' for everyone to meet. Advertisement and the media as a whole pushes this concept how you should look and dress and to fight the 'signs of ageing' and it pisses me off no end.
Their shitty notion of what it means to be attractive and how you should express your sexuality make people feel ugly (not everyone has got the capacity to be happy with how they look by default so these pressures and standards can be quite damaging). I'd love us to have one generation where these ads and the typical model of physical beauty and sexuality weren't on constant display, just to see how it affects that generation (to see if it's more a case of nature than nurture...I believe the latter).
I know the topic was feminism but I think it applies to men too.
Ok, stupid rant from the ugly perspective over, sorry if too off-topic

[Eagle_Syr]

"enforced" does not refer to physical force as far as patriarchy in the western world goes.

But as I said, it is often the choice of the woman to be a mother and housemaker. Somebody has to do it.


Have sex and relationships with whoever you personally find attractive, but there shouldn't be a 'standard' for everyone to meet. Advertisement and the media as a whole pushes this concept how you should look and dress and to fight the 'signs of ageing' and it pisses me off no end.
Their shitty notion of what it means to be attractive and how you should express your sexuality make people feel ugly (not everyone has got the capacity to be happy with how they look by default so these pressures and standards can be quite damaging). I'd love us to have one generation where these ads and the typical model of physical beauty and sexuality weren't on constant display, just to see how it affects that generation (to see if it's more a case of nature than nurture...I believe the latter).
I know the topic was feminism but I think it applies to men too.
Ok, stupid rant from the ugly perspective over, sorry if too off-topic

I think we will always objectify and sexualize people that are attractive. How can we not? Women are superior to men, that is why their beauty is revered :lol:

[Rafiq]

Eagle syr, ever heard of battered wife syndrom? Is that a "choice" too? Or is it a product of systemic and socially institutionalized sexism and patriarchy? Is it a "choice" for poor to be poor? Is capitalism a "choice"?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Eagle_Syr]

So whenever a woman is a mother and housemaker, she is oppressed?

[Quail]

But as I said, it is often the choice of the woman to be a mother and housemaker. Somebody has to do it.


The problem is that if gender roles and stereotypes exist, then they are enforced. Nobody lives in a vacuum; we are influenced by our surroundings. If it's the norm for women to do most of the housework and childcare (for example) then heterosexual men will grow up with the expectation that their partner will do most of the domestic labour and women will grow up feeling that it is their duty to do the domestic labour and so it will be hard to make progress. We internalise patriarchal messages all the time, both men and women. We have to examine ourselves and try to unpick a lifetime of social conditioning and it isn't easy.
That's not to say that every woman who chooses to be a homemaker does so out of internalised sexism, but like wearing make-up, plucking our eyebrows, etc. it's not as free a choice as you claim it is.

[Eagle_Syr]

But there is truly no way of overcoming that sort of thing. You'd have to completely re-write human culture. And then what happens if the women still choose to take on that role, which arguably comes from natural maternal instinct?

[Quail]

But there is truly no way of overcoming that sort of thing. You'd have to completely re-write human culture. And then what happens if the women still choose to take on that role, which arguably comes from natural maternal instinct?
You mean we'd have to do away with patriarchy? Yep.

Hypothetically if there were no gender roles and a woman only wanted to do domestic labour, then there wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't be a "choice" that was forced upon her.

Although personally I'm sceptical that in a society without sexism, women would choose to do most of the domestic labour instead of choosing to share it with their partner and being able to grow and develop themselves as people.

[Luc]

But there is truly no way of overcoming that sort of thing. You'd have to completely re-write human culture. And then what happens if the women still choose to take on that role, which arguably comes from natural maternal instinct?

sounds like human nature fallacy bullshit with added sexist flavouring :/

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

That guy is hardly that muscly, he's at a realistic stage most men should aim at, 9% or 10% body fat, purely for the health reasons.

This is muscly. And a caricature of ''manliness''.

http://gofitandhealthy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Coleman01.jpg

Hahaha! "Most men should aim at"! LOL, that's hilarious; so i should aim at going to a smelly gymnastic room and move my head and chest up a hundred times to get to my "realistic stage"? Haha! No, i think i would rather bike to Biergarten and drink a few liter beer and read.

[Eagle_Syr]

sounds like human nature fallacy bullshit with added sexist flavouring :/

I tend to agree that appeals to "human nature" are bull, but that isn't always the case. We are human and we do have natural drives and instincts. Especially when it comes to family and child-rearing. No amount of revolution can change that.

[Luc]

I tend to agree that appeals to "human nature" are bull, but that isn't always the case. We are human and we do have natural drives and instincts. No amount of revolution can change that.

okay you make a controversial claim... prove it now?

[bcbm]

Somebody has to do it.

never heard of 'sharing the load?'


But there is truly no way of overcoming that sort of thing. You'd have to completely re-write human culture.there is one human culture?


And then what happens if the women still choose to take on that role, which arguably comes from natural maternal instinct?increasing numbers of men are becoming 'househusbands' and stay at home dads due to shifts in the economy giving some women an edge and allowing them to become the 'breadwinners' of the family. this has gone from stigmatized to basically normal in a decade or two and the trend looks likely to continue which suggests this arrangement has more to do with economics than instinct.

and while we are talking about 'instinct,' human beings evolved in band societies where basically every activity was communal, including sex and child rearing. the family as we understand it is a product of agriculture, specifically the beginning of class and property. the idea of a male breadwinner and female housewife are even newer ideas, beginning in the postwar years.

[Eagle_Syr]

okay you make a controversial claim... prove it now?

Prove what? That human beings have a psychological make-up which includes instincts about family and children?

[Luc]

Prove what? That human beings have a psychological make-up which includes instincts about family and children?

you could prove that said "instincts" are biologicaly influenced psychology(meaning they cant change) as opposed to social conditioning influenced psychology (which can be changed)

also you could prove that there is at some level a single "human being" <-- thats worded terribly hope u get what i mean

[bcbm]

I tend to agree that appeals to "human nature" are bull, but that isn't always the case. We are human and we do have natural drives and instincts. Especially when it comes to family and child-rearing. No amount of revolution can change that.

our natural drives and instincts are basically the exact opposite of the 'nuclear family' arrangement.

[Eagle_Syr]

never heard of 'sharing the load?' I personally think having at least one parent who is always there is better (from personal experience, i.e, never having a father)


there is one human culture? There are features universal or near universal in human society; child-rearing is one of them


increasing numbers of men are becoming 'househusbands' and stay at home dads due to shifts in the economy giving some women an edge and allowing them to become the 'breadwinners' of the family. this has gone from stigmatized to basically normal in a decade or two and the trend looks likely to continue. Actually men are faring better in the recession than women, but that is irrelevant at any rate.

The point is, one of the two has to do it; so if it is the woman, how can we call it oppressive?

[Eagle_Syr]

you could prove that said "instincts" are biologicaly influenced psychology(meaning they cant change) as opposed to social conditioning influenced psychology (which can be changed)


Then what does your model propose?

Suppose in some far distant communist society, a woman, or women in the majority, still choose to stay with the children. Are they still oppressed?

I don't think patriarchy is necessarily a product of capitalism because patriarchy was around long before modern capitalism. Indeed, no major society in the world has ever been matriarchal

And I don't mean to rag on women, because I do believe women are superior to men

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Fact is, with our current advanced productive forces (computers) where there would not even be a need for manual labor anymore, that having gender roles is not scientifically excusable. Sure it's strange for us to say that now maybe because we live in a capitalist society and are attached and used to certain gender traits. I don't believe though that if we did in fact create a socialist society, that the basic gender roles would vanish immediately. Trans-sex Physical attraction would still exist, just that i believe the importance and societal relevance of physical appearance will fade out throughout the advance of socialism to communism to eventually become of most likely no large relevance. Natural instincts of reproduction will always exist of course though, so physical attraction will always play a role, just that the personality of the partner will most likely play a larger role.

BTW I wrote a thing similar to this here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11271)

[Luc]

Then what does your model propose?

Suppose in some far distant communist society, a woman, or women in the majority, still choose to stay with the children. Are they still oppressed?

I don't think patriarchy is necessarily a product of capitalism because patriarchy was around long before modern capitalism. Indeed, no major society in the world has ever been matriarchal

And I don't mean to rag on women, because I do believe women are superior to men

that last line? yeah, dont feed the masculists :lol:

im still forming an opinion on this

but you made an assertion and you didnt back it up is all i was saying i wasnt trying to be antagonistic or unfairly so :)

[bcbm]

There are features universal or near universal in human society; child-rearing is one of them

the existence of it, yes, the specifics, no.


Actually men are faring better in the recession than women, but that is irrelevant at any rate.

not exactly (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/men-women-and-the-great-recession/), and you missed the point which is that it has nothing to do with 'maternal instinct'


The point is, one of the two has to do it; so if it is the woman, how can we call it oppressive?

if it isn't a choice

[bcbm]

Suppose in some far distant communist society, a woman, or women in the majority, still choose to stay with the children. Are they still oppressed?

i dont think families as we know them would exist in any great number


I don't think patriarchy is necessarily a product of capitalism because patriarchy was around long before modern capitalism.

its a product of class society and agriculture

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, i read an article from a neuro-biologist who says that humans are psychologically adults at 14 and are fully mentally developed for sexual reproduction at the age of 6.

This is why i am also an advocate of sexual education along these scientific findings, i also learned about sex at a very early age, how the human reproductive system works and when we learned about it when i was 16 in school i found it quite boring really.


So what this implies, is that until kids are around 14, they need to be taught, helped, and lead as they do not have a fully developed human brain yet. When kids are enter their teenage years, i recommend introducing them to an advanced more autonomous but challenging stage of Youth Organisations (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=996).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

i dont think families as we know them would exist in any great number



its a product of class society and agriculture

From what i know, humans have traditionally been monogamous and stayed within a single relationship for nearly their whole life. One can blame this on the material conditions of isolated class society, maybe a communist society would see a more polygamous society. But when one looks at Swans, they as well have one partner for their life; maybe marxism can be applied to Swans(?): what are the material conditions of swans? LOL

Back to humans: In neuro-biology and natural science (my mother is a veterinarian) social and sexual monogamy are differentiated between. So most likely socialist society will see a sexual polygamous society and a social monogamous society and become increasingly social polygamous as well as socialism advances towards communist society.

BTW i assert these assumptions from the different social movements, counter-culture movements, traditions and class strength.

[Agent Ducky]

And I don't mean to rag on women, because I do believe women are superior to men
What the fuck? :confused: Why are we superior? I've never understood people who say this, especially guys.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What the fuck? :confused: Why are we superior? I've never understood people who say this, especially guys.

Well, women are superior in that they are more attractive than men (so the heterosexuals claim).

[Eagle_Syr]

the existence of it, yes, the specifics, no.
Maybe not, but again, no society has ever been matriarchal, and I don't think that just because we oppose class oppression we need to suddenly oppose the very idea of family or child-rearing


if it isn't a choice
But it is


i dont think families as we know them would exist in any great number


Why not? Why shouldn't they?


What the fuck? Why are we superior? I've never understood people who say this, especially guys.

Women are more graceful, more intelligent, and more well-mannered.
Also I'm into some kinky stuff which may have something to do with that :lol:

[X5N]

I believe that the culture should be changed in such a way that eliminates gender norms and any differential treatment of the sexes. Thus, there shouldn't be any disparate standards for beauty or sexuality between the sexes.

[marl]

Women are more graceful, more intelligent, and more well-mannered.
Also I'm into some kinky stuff which may have something to do with that :lol:

It was a patriarchal society that made men the macho, rugged ones and women the delicate little butterflies. Except, thing is, we've been seeing the rise of female athletes, for one, which completely contradicts the sexist social norm that men are the real athletic ones.

[Eagle_Syr]

I believe that the culture should be changed in such a way that eliminates gender norms and any differential treatment of the sexes. Thus, there shouldn't be any disparate standards for beauty or sexuality between the sexes.

I feel like that pretends that men and women are the same.


It was a patriarchal society that made men the macho, rugged ones and women the delicate little butterflies. Except, thing is, we've been seeing the rise of female athletes, for one, which completely contradicts the sexist social norm that men are the real athletic ones.

Men are, on the whole, more athletic. The top male athletes in the world will out-compete the top female athletes in nearly any case. This is a sexual characteristic; men also tend to have far more pronounced muscle growth than women.

That is not at all to say that men are superior, as I have already said otherwise. That is simply to say that men and women are biologically different.

This is predominantly due to sexual selection, a Darwinian evolutionary process by which traits and characteristics are enhanced because of sexual drive. In human beings, this explains why men tend to be larger, hairier, and more physically pronounced than women.

Again, that is not to claim any sex is inferior, but rather scientific fact. I don't feel like we should pretend men and women are the same just because we want to fight the system.

[X5N]

I feel like that pretends that men and women are the same.

Biologically, no. But nearly every thing we recognize as a difference between men and women is the result of environment. It is these environmental factors (socialization, etc.) that lead to men and women being different. And I feel that in order for society to truly be egalitarian, there must be a great cultural change that abolishes gender norms and such things.

It's important to remember that most socialization occurs in the most formative years, between birth and anywhere between a year and two or three years (I forget the exact figure).

The problem is that it can't really be proven. To prove that gender is environmental, you'd have to take twins, from birth, and raise one in a complete social vacuum -- and of course, that would be unethical. I just find it hard to believe that gender is something hardwired.

You're making the mistake of assuming that every sex difference is hardwired. Men aren't naturally more athletic. Men are more athletic because the way men are socialized typically makes them more likely to be athletic. Same reason why men tend to be more likely to be involved in (bourgeois) politics -- it's not because men are naturally more endowed to the task of public life.

[Eagle_Syr]

Biologically, no. But nearly every thing we recognize as a difference between men and women is the result of environment. It is these environmental factors (socialization, etc.) that lead to men and women being different. And I feel that in order for society to truly be egalitarian, there must be a great cultural change that abolishes gender norms and such things. I don't see why having non-enforced gender norms is problematic. It will necessarily be a part of the culture regarding the family unit.


You're making the mistake of assuming that every sex difference is hardwired. Men aren't naturally more athletic. Men are more athletic because the way men are socialized typically makes them more likely to be athletic. Same reason why men tend to be more likely to be involved in (bourgeois) politics -- it's not because men are naturally more endowed to the task of public life.
Evolutionary theory and anthropology do indicate that sexual differences are hard-wired, certainly physical differences such as athleticism.

Now, the cultural idea of men being more athletic, for example, may not be hard-wired but it is a product of natural human physiology and sexuality; that is why every society in the world has been patriarchal, before capitalism and before they were in contact with one another.

That seems to objectively indicate that there is a relationship between gender and behavior. My assertion is that we can embrace this rather than ignoring it, and it wouldn't be oppressive.

[Quail]

Maybe not, but again, no society has ever been matriarchal, and I don't think that just because we oppose class oppression we need to suddenly oppose the very idea of family or child-rearing

Nobody opposes child-rearing, but in a future society I imagine it would be more of a communal thing, so that everybody gets the opportunity to develop themselves and get the most out of their lives. Raising a child is fucking hard work. If that work could be shared between many members of the community (such as in a childcare co-op, for example) it would benefit everyone.


Women are more graceful, more intelligent, and more well-mannered.
Also I'm into some kinky stuff which may have something to do with that :lol:
Ugh. Women are brought up to be more "graceful" and "well-mannered" - these aren't inherent qualities that all women are born possessing. All these comments about how great women are make you come across as though you're just trying to hide your misogyny.


I don't see why having non-enforced gender norms is problematic. It will necessarily be a part of the culture regarding the family unit.

With more communal child-rearing and no private property to be passed down through an heir, I don't think that nuclear family units will be quite so popular.

Also, as I said earlier, it's impossible to have non-enforced gender norms. Gender norms aren't enforced by actual physical force - don't underestimate the social pressure from everyone around us. As long as there are gender norms to "live up to" we will all be oppressed, both by our peers and by ourselves.


Evolutionary theory and anthropology do indicate that sexual differences are hard-wired, certainly physical differences such as athleticism.

Now, the cultural idea of men being more athletic, for example, may not be hard-wired but it is a product of natural human physiology and sexuality; that is why every society in the world has been patriarchal, before capitalism and before they were in contact with one another.

That seems to objectively indicate that there is a relationship between gender and behavior. My assertion is that we can embrace this rather than ignoring it, and it wouldn't be oppressive.
So basically, patriarchy is human nature so sexism is okay?

[Eagle_Syr]

Nobody opposes child-rearing, but in a future society I imagine it would be more of a communal thing, so that everybody gets the opportunity to develop themselves and get the most out of their lives. Raising a child is fucking hard work. If that work could be shared between many members of the community (such as in a childcare co-op, for example) it would benefit everyone.

That could be a good thing, but that is if the traditional family structure did indeed lose its significance. If it doesn't, my argument comes into play.


Ugh. Women are brought up to be more "graceful" and "well-mannered" - these aren't inherent qualities that all women are born possessing. From my experience, the women I've known have been better educated, more intelligent, and fairer than the men I have known.

You are right, though, I suppose, that this is a product of their environment and not their biology.


All these comments about how great women are make you come across as though you're just trying to hide your misogyny.
I can assure you I genuinely believe women are great. I find the idea of a woman in charge to be awesome, actually.


Also, as I said earlier, it's impossible to have non-enforced gender norms. Gender norms aren't enforced by actual physical force - don't underestimate the social pressure from everyone around us. As long as there are gender norms to "live up to" we will all be oppressed, both by our peers and by ourselves.
But then I feel we fall into a trap where anything anyone does could be said to be because of "social pressures". I mean, wearing clothes, for example.


So basically, patriarchy is human nature so sexism is okay?

What sexism? The acknowledgement that men and women are different isn't sexism.

[Agent Ducky]

From my experience, the women I've known have been better educated, more intelligent, and fairer than the men I have known.


Better educated is something that's completely disparate from gender. And graceful and well-mannered is bullshit, like Quail said, society conditions women to be that way. I know for a fact it's bullshit because I'm not too keen on the whole "graceful" thing myself, fuck that shit.

A better phrasing would be "I prefer the company of women over men" instead of "I believe women are superior to men." See how one of these is problematic and the other one is a statement of personal preference?

And yeah, you think women are great. But is it for all the wrong reasons?
Kinda seems like it.

[Quail]

That could be a good thing, but that is if the traditional family structure did indeed lose its significance. If it doesn't, my argument comes into play.
For everyone to be liberated in the sense that they were able to live life to its fullest, child-rearing would have to be more communal. A free and equal society wouldn't be free or equal if it pressured women to do all the domestic labour while men were free to do whatever they liked.



I can assure you I genuinely believe women are great. I find the idea of a woman in charge to be awesome, actually.
This sounds as though you have a fetish for being dominated. The way you talk about women makes you come across as though you think women are awesome to look at and admire and nothing else. Women aren't just here for you to admire, you know. We're people with our own feelings, hopes and aspirations.


But then I feel we fall into a trap where anything anyone does could be said to be because of "social pressures". I mean, wearing clothes, for example.
Wearing clothes doesn't oppress one group of people for being who they are.


What sexism? The acknowledgement that men and women are different isn't sexism.
They're not as different as you claim. You seem to be making the claim that men and women have certain biological differences, therefore they should conform to set gender roles. You're arguing that patriarchy is okay because men have a different distribution of muscle tissue. By arguing that we should uphold patriarchal gender norms, you're arguing for the oppression of women in general, of masculine women, of feminine men, of gay and bisexual wo/men, of trans people. That is sexism.

[Lee Van Cleef]

For starters, I think all those pictures of beefy men that were posted on the first two pages were totally gross and disgusting, and I would honestly hate my life if I looked like that. Decide seems like the kind of guy who looks at me funny or calls me a faggot because of the way I dress or take care of myself. Fuck off with that shit, "lad."

Eagle_Syr, as others have said, you're really just reinforcing gender roles, especially when you say women are superior because of this or that. I'm with you in that I find confident, independent women to be much more attractive than the idealized domestic submissive type. However, you're not giving them the respect they deserve. As Quail said, everyone woman (or man), is an individual with their own thoughts, hopes, desires, interests, talents, etc. Respect people for who they are, and not who you think they ought to be.

[Le Socialiste]

That could be a good thing, but that is if the traditional family structure did indeed lose its significance. If it doesn't, my argument comes into play.

What traditional family structure? You mean the one that hadn't fully developed until post-WWII, and this largely due to material rather than biological conditions? Your "traditional" family unit is a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas communal child-rearing practices have been used for thousands of years. This isn't to say we should aspire towards more 'primitive' organizational planning, but to highlight the reality that humanity's approach to child-rearing has differed culturally, materially, and socially throughout history. Geography also plays a significant role. Attitudes towards sex and identity are not universal, contrary to what some have said on here.



But then I feel we fall into a trap where anything anyone does could be said to be because of "social pressures". I mean, wearing clothes, for example.

So you'd be comfortable with wearing any style of clothing then, like a frilly skirt, two-piece bikini, women's lingerie, high heels, or a dress? If social pressures aren't in play here, it shouldn't be a problem - right? Unless you were speaking specifically about wearing clothes (as opposed to nudity) in public? In which case, I'm sure you'd be ostracized and/or arrested for strolling around town in your birthday suit. But then social pressures don't mean a thing here either, correct?

[Tim Cornelis]

You're making the mistake of assuming that every sex difference is hardwired. Men aren't naturally more athletic. Men are more athletic because the way men are socialized typically makes them more likely to be athletic.

I disagree with this part. It's quite obvious, looking at biology and sports performance, that men are—on average—more athletic.

This is due to "male" hormone, testosterone, which males produce at a far greater rate than women (20 times more).


In males, testosterone directly increases size and mass of muscles, vocal cords, and bones, deepening the voice, and changing the shape of the face and skeleton.

This gives men an athletic advantage over women.

[Eagle_Syr]

For everyone to be liberated in the sense that they were able to live life to its fullest, child-rearing would have to be more communal. A free and equal society wouldn't be free or equal if it pressured women to do all the domestic labour while men were free to do whatever they liked. I never said men should do whatever they like. On the contrary, I said one partner would take care of the domestic work and the other would go out to labor. I never specified which gender would do which - that is up to the individuals in the relationship. Both of them, thus, contribute to the community.


This sounds as though you have a fetish for being dominated. The way you talk about women makes you come across as though you think women are awesome to look at and admire and nothing else. Women aren't just here for you to admire, you know. We're people with our own feelings, hopes and aspirations. No, I am admiring femininity itself, which does exist. Again, I don't think men and women are the same, and both of them have particular "spheres" (for lack of a better term) of characteristics. That could be a very healthy part of the culture.

As long as we aren't legally forcing anything on anybody, and not ostracizing those who don't conform, I don't see the problem. Because there will still be feminine women in the ideal communist society



Wearing clothes doesn't oppress one group of people for being who they are.
Nudists would disagree.


They're not as different as you claim. You seem to be making the claim that men and women have certain biological differences, therefore they should conform to set gender roles. You're arguing that patriarchy is okay because men have a different distribution of muscle tissue. By arguing that we should uphold patriarchal gender norms, you're arguing for the oppression of women in general, of masculine women, of feminine men, of gay and bisexual wo/men, of trans people. That is sexism.
No. Again, acknowledgement of our differences isn't oppression or sexism. Behavioral differences between the sexes are observed in other species, too.



What traditional family structure? You mean the one that hadn't fully developed until post-WWII, and this largely due to material rather than biological conditions? Your "traditional" family unit is a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas communal child-rearing practices have been used for thousands of years. This isn't to say we should aspire towards more 'primitive' organizational planning, but to highlight the reality that humanity's approach to child-rearing has differed culturally, materially, and socially throughout history. Geography also plays a significant role. Attitudes towards sex and identity are not universal, contrary to what some have said on here. That is true, but patriarchy has been universal since the beginning of civilization. Not that it matters, since classism has been around for quite a while too; not to mention slavery, war, racism, etc. But it does indicate that there is something that may be psychologically different between men and women.

This is all pointless, however, since I am simply arguing that it is okay for a woman to be feminine.

[bcbm]

From what i know, humans have traditionally been monogamous and stayed within a single relationship for nearly their whole life.

historically humans have had a number of different relationship arrangements. the earliest humans lived in band societies where it is likely they practiced a basically polyamorous arrangement, as evidenced by a number of still existing band societies with human physiology strongly supporting this idea. even within societies that claim 'monogamy,' adultery seems to be fairly common and historically polygamous relationships were common especially among the elite, all of which suggests 'mating for life' isn't typical human behavior.


Maybe not, but again, no society has ever been matriarchal,

um yes a number of societies have been matriarchal.


and I don't think that just because we oppose class oppression we need to suddenly oppose the very idea of family or child-rearing

as though those are not linked to class oppression? but regardless, who is opposed to family or child-rearing? there is nothing wrong with either but i don't believe their current manifestations are healthy for anyone involved and in a communist society we would see a return to looser, wider and more communal family and child-rearing.


But it is

i think in many cases it is not, and i think social coercion counts as it not being a free choice. obviously there is no problem if all involved parties discuss the matter and come to that arrangement freely.


Why not? Why shouldn't they?

because the family as we know it is already disintegrating under capitalism and in a classless society i think its archaic form would no longer have any reason to exist

[Rafiq]

But there is truly no way of overcoming that sort of thing. You'd have to completely re-write human culture. And then what happens if the women still choose to take on that role, which arguably comes from natural maternal instinct?

Scientific Sexist bullshit.

It's not "human" culture, it's bourgeois culture.

And yes, we as communists seek to crush all remnants of such.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Eagle Syr: Shut the fuck up and get this through your thick skull: Gender is socially constructed.

Humans have but one nature: To behave in accordance with the mode of production set forth. That means, yes, it's 'Natural' for the Bourgeois family structure to persist in Bourgeois society (i.e. Capitalism), and therefore, yes, we understand sometimes women "Choose" to be a part of this, i.e. do not act against this, but as Materialists we ask a simple question: Why? Do the required social mechanisms exist that would allow women to choose otherwise? And the answer is no. Choice, and Will, mean absolutely nothing. All choices and everything willed by humans is necessiated not by their "Spirit" or "Soul", but by the mode of production before them.

Then, you ask, how do you get rid of this? The only emergency exit in capitalism resides within the proletarian class. I don't pretend to know what social structure both sexes will abide by, but it certainly isn't something that resembles the Bourgeois family structure and patriarchy. After all, Feminism, like the Civil Rights movement, is inherently a movement tied to the emancipation of the proletariat, and it's magnitude of success exists in correlation with proletarian class consciousness.

By your logic, Eagle Syr, the problem in capitalism is not systemic, not inherent to the system. To you, the contradicitnos in capitalism amount merely to the choices of the Bourgeois class, and the only solution is for them to make "Moral" choices. On the contrary, we materialists recognize that choice exists in correlation with the mode of production, and that in a system which makes it possible for ("corrupt" Bourgeois) to do as they please, that particular system is to blame, not hte actions of individuals which exist solely in response.

Again, look up battered wife syndrom.

There's nothing inherently "natural" about the Bourgeois family structure. As Engels noted in Origins of Private Property, Family and the State, the family structure was something that existed in correlation with the mode of production, not as a result of some kind of obscure expression of something that exists "within" humans. Indeed, whatever is "within" humans is determined by material conditions.

And ah, the classic Chauvinist-Islamist line I've heard: "I'm not Sexist, actually, women are superior".

Cute, but all this does is contribute to the accusations leveled by most users in this thread that you're nothing more than a sexist pissbrain. What you call "Women" (Feminity, weakness, 'kindness', 'obedience') is what we Communists seek to abolish. Indeed, they are products of the Bourgeois mode of organization, not something universal, objective, and inherent to the existence of what we call a human being.

We seek to abolish gender and the Bourgeois family structure, not exemplify it by saying "Women are better". That's like saying "Slaves are better, for X reason". No. The point is to abolish slavery.

As for your nonsense in the past days about "Ideals", we Marxists are materialists, and you should now this. We say fuck Idealism, and Fuck the Communist "Ideal". Communism is nothing more than a weapon of the proletarian class which would contribute to their dictatorship over Bourgeois society, not some kind of "End Goal" or "Ideal" in which doesn't correlate with reality and therefore compromises like the Bourgeois family structure are made because "Communizm ain't realiztic". Yes. Your communism isn't realistic, and you can go fuck off with it.

You ask "What if Women in 'communist society' (Whatever the fuck that means) choose to be stay at home mothers? It's fucking just about as likely for Women these days to 'choose' to be forced off in some fucking marriage to secure relations between different families, in modern day Liberalist capitalism (As in, Western Europe and the U.S.).

Sure, it may exist, but it's a remnant of the old existing order and would eventually die off. It isn't something to be exemplified.

And to BCBM: I recognize your intentions are solid, and you've made some decent arguments. But in truth there doesn't exist a biological instinct or nature that would determine the social structure that humans organize themselves into. If we were naturally communal, capitalism wouldn't exist, and neither would patriarchy. Humans act in mere correlation with material conditions, meaning a Bourgeois scum is just as human as the rest of us. Capitalism is not an abomination of Human nature, simply because 'Human nature' as we see it doesn't exist. And what are these material conditions I speak of? As Engels noted, the entanglement of several individual interests which exists as a product of will (And will existing for survival, etc.) and the end result being something that no one willed, something beyond the former. Class society does not form intentionally, neither does capitalism.

"All existing history is a history of class struggles".

[Eagle_Syr]

historically humans have had a number of different relationship arrangements. the earliest humans lived in band societies where it is likely they practiced a basically polyamorous arrangement, as evidenced by a number of still existing band societies with human physiology strongly supporting this idea. even within societies that claim 'monogamy,' adultery seems to be fairly common and historically polygamous relationships were common especially among the elite, all of which suggests 'mating for life' isn't typical human behavior. Most human societies are monogamous, actually, but that is irrelevant.

The facts you present actually better explain my argument: take a look at polygamous societies, and evolutionary theory explains the distinction in characteristics between males and females. This is due to sexual selection; this is why human males tend to be larger, hairier, and more aggressive than human females.

In other species, things such as color, agility and physical prowess, and even behaviors allow one sex to attract the other; when this carries on, it is sexual selection and it leads to these traits becoming pronounced.

In human beings, these are manifested in things such as wealth, power, and physicality. This is why Ottoman Sultans had large harems of women even though they may have been aesthetically meager.

The differences between men and women are evolutionary. Of course, I agree that this should not matter with regards to the law or to society. But femininity isn't a bad thing.




um yes a number of societies have been matriarchal.
Maybe a few in some random jungle, but no major society has ever been matriarchal.


because the family as we know it is already disintegrating under capitalism and in a classless society i think its archaic form would no longer have any reason to exist
Maybe. But again, some women will still choose to be feminine.



It's not "human culture", it's bourgeois culture



Patriarchy has been around long before capitalism

[Rafiq]

Patriarchy has been around long before capitalism

Then it existed in accordance with that specific mode of production.

The only thing in modern day Capitalism that is keeping patriarchy alive are the interests of the Bourgeois class.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Then it existed in accordance with that specific mode of production.

The only thing in modern day Capitalism that is keeping patriarchy alive are the interests of the Bourgeois class.


WOT?!

I believe it would be in the best interests of the capitalists to end patriarchy, then more people would work=more profit.

[Agent Ducky]

I never said men should do whatever they like. On the contrary, I said one partner would take care of the domestic work and the other would go out to labor. I never specified which gender would do which - that is up to the individuals in the relationship. Both of them, thus, contribute to the community.

Or there's this revolutionary concept of sharing the house work.
But like everyone has been saying, we're most likely gonna see a breakdown of the whole nuclear family structure with a shift towards more communal child-rearing.



No, I am admiring femininity itself, which does exist. Again, I don't think men and women are the same, and both of them have particular "spheres" (for lack of a better term) of characteristics. That could be a very healthy part of the culture.

Like what? Can you define femininity and masculinity? Because I sure fucking can't. I like to think that society's idea of femininity and an individual's idea of femininity can be completely different. I would argue that it is up to each individual woman to define her own femininity, no matter what society says. The idea is that in an ideal communist society, that this highly-decentralized definition of femininity will be one and the same with society's definition. And same thing vice-versa with masculinity.
Gender anarchy, if you will.

[Agent Ducky]

WOT?!

I believe it would be in the best interests of the capitalists to end patriarchy, then more people would work=more profit.

No, it's in the best interests of the capitalists to have as many subjugated groups as possible. If you subjugate blacks, the white workers will have something a level below them, a frame of reference, and will therefore be less likely to take action against the capitalists. It also serves to divide the workers and pit them against one another. Same thing with women.

Nowadays though, it's more of a profit thing. Patriarchy is highly profitable. Selling men and women their gender roles creates millions of dollars in revenue for the companies that exploit this.

[Eagle_Syr]

Eagle Syr: Shut the fuck up and get this through your thick skull: Gender is socially constructed. Very brash and direct. Wonderful!


Humans have but one nature: To behave in accordance with the mode of production set forth. That means, yes, it's 'Natural' for the Bourgeois family structure to persist in Bourgeois society (i.e. Capitalism), and therefore, yes, we understand sometimes women "Choose" to be a part of this, i.e. do not act against this, but as Materialists we ask a simple question: Why? Do the required social mechanisms exist that would allow women to choose otherwise? And the answer is no. Choice, and Will, mean absolutely nothing. All choices and everything willed by humans is necessiated not by their "Spirit" or "Soul", but by the mode of production before them.
I don't entirely agree. Humans are romantic beings; this is why the same archetypes and emotions are experienced by different, historically disconnected cultures.

That doesn't mean you can't change human nature, because you can: greed, for example, is certainly enhanced because of the capitalist system which promotes it. But it is still there, somewhere, still down there, and it can always be expressed.

Behavior is evolutionary, and it will take time to change it.


Then, you ask, how do you get rid of this? The only emergency exit in capitalism resides within the proletarian class. I don't pretend to know what social structure both sexes will abide by, but it certainly isn't something that resembles the Bourgeois family structure and patriarchy. After all, Feminism, like the Civil Rights movement, is inherently a movement tied to the emancipation of the proletariat, and it's magnitude of success exists in correlation with proletarian class consciousness.
I agree. My quesiton is one of culture, not law. Obviously, I support the aims of feminism to that end; but I don't understand their "war on culture". That is what I want to understand. I don't think every aspect of our culture is "a product of the bourgeoisie".


By your logic, Eagle Syr, the problem in capitalism is not systemic, not inherent to the system. To you, the contradicitnos in capitalism amount merely to the choices of the Bourgeois class, and the only solution is for them to make "Moral" choices. The problems in capitalism are systematic.

The earliest Marxist movements did not ally themselves with the feminist movement, in fact.


On the contrary, we materialists recognize that choice exists in correlation with the mode of production, and that in a system which makes it possible for ("corrupt" Bourgeois) to do as they please, that particular system is to blame, not the actions of individuals which exist solely in response.

Some behaviors surpass modern capitalism in universality and historical relevance.


Again, look up battered wife syndrom.
I did. And?


There's nothing inherently "natural" about the Bourgeois family structure. As Engels noted in Origins of Private Property, Family and the State, the family structure was something that existed in correlation with the mode of production, not as a result of some kind of obscure expression of something that exists "within" humans. Indeed, whatever is "within" humans is determined by material conditions.

What about evolutionary behavioral traits?


And ah, the classic Chauvinist-Islamist line I've heard: "I'm not Sexist, actually, women are superior".
I'm neither a Chauvinist or Islamist.


Cute, but all this does is contribute to the accusations leveled by most users in this thread that you're nothing more than a sexist pissbrain. What you call "Women" (Feminity, weakness, 'kindness', 'obedience') Actually those are not the qualities I described

is what we Communists seek to abolish. Indeed, they are products of the Bourgeois mode of organization, not something universal, objective, and inherent to the existence of what we call a human being.
Except femininity has been around longer than capitalism


We seek to abolish gender and the Bourgeois family structure, not exemplify it by saying "Women are better". That's like saying "Slaves are better, for X reason". No. The point is to abolish slavery.
You can't abolish gender


Sure, it may exist, but it's a remnant of the old existing order and would eventually die off. It isn't something to be exemplified.
It would be an interesting experiment to see how men and women would behave. I can almost guarantee you some women would still be feminine.

[Rafiq]

Very brash and direct. Wonderful!

You deserve worse.


I don't entirely agree. Humans are romantic beings; this is why the same archetypes and emotions are experienced by different, historically disconnected cultures.


And it just so happens these cultures operated under similar mode of production.


That doesn't mean you can't change human nature, because you can: greed, for example, is certainly enhanced because of the capitalist system which promotes it. But it is still there, somewhere, still down there, and it can always be expressed.

There isn't a human nature to change. There is, however, a system which necessitates greed that can be destroyed.


Behavior is evolutionary, and it will take time to change it.


Some of it is. In regards to social organization of genders, it's not. It exists in accordance to the mode of production.


I agree. My quesiton is one of culture, not law. Obviously, I support the aims of feminism to that end; but I don't understand their "war on culture". That is what I want to understand. I don't think every aspect of our culture is "a product of the bourgeoisie".

But it is. Every aspect of our "culture" exists to adjust to the interests of the Bourgeois class. If it didn't, it would be done away with.

And thus, we oppose Bourgeois culture, and especially oppose reactionary, pre capitalist culture as well.


The problems in capitalism are systematic.


So why does it end there for you? Why is the bourgeois family structure a "choice", but capitalism is not? That's called inconsistent materialism.


The earliest Marxist movements did not ally themselves with the feminist movement, in fact.


That's because the earliest of feminist movements were tied to the female wives of the Bourgeoisie (Which doesn't make them bad, or anything). But anyway, see Bebel, who was an avid feminist, and Engels, who was somewhat of a Feminist.

Feminism as we know it was inherently proletarian.


Some behaviors surpass modern capitalism in universality and historical relevance.


Some "behavioral" traits among humans do exist regardless of the mode of production in each circumstance, such as shitting, anger, and so on. The way humans are organized, however, isn't something that's hard wired.

I'd go as far as saying that even genetically, the mode of production shaped what is "hard wired". Evolution and Marxism go together hand in hand, as a matter of fact.


I did. And?


So even though the Women chose to stay in those abusive relationships, it doesn't still make it a "choice" in our sense. Because they lacked the required mechanisms to make a choice otherwise.



What about evolutionary behavioral traits?


Such influences do not extend as far as family structure goes (Or language).


I'm neither a Chauvinist or Islamist.


Not formally, perhaps. You are the former, though.


Actually those are not the qualities I described


The qualities you described were counter revolutionary.


Except femininity has been around longer than capitalism


And the only thing keeping it alive now, are the interests of the Bourgeois class and Capital. The proletariat's interests are antithetical to this, unlike the Bourgeoisie of feudalism which had no problem of it.


You can't abolish gender


We can. Gender has always changed. We not only can, we will.


It would be an interesting experiment to see how men and women would behave. I can almost guarantee you some women would still be feminine.

You take women from capitalism, whom were born it in, and place them on an island then yes, they would be. Obviously, though, you don't understand how humans behave in accordance with different mode of production. In truth, no they wouldn't be feminine, they'd most likely, as we've seen with several proletarian movements, be Militant-Egalitarians like their male counterparts. Since nothing in a "communist society" would necessitate the bourgeois family structure (Like capital), the (Bourgeois family structure) itself would disinigrate.

[Rafiq]

You didn't come close to thourougly addressing my post. Try again. You just declared things.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

No, it's in the best interests of the capitalists to have as many subjugated groups as possible. If you subjugate blacks, the white workers will have something a level below them, a frame of reference, and will therefore be less likely to take action against the capitalists. It also serves to divide the workers and pit them against one another. Same thing with women.

Nowadays though, it's more of a profit thing. Patriarchy is highly profitable. Selling men and women their gender roles creates millions of dollars in revenue for the companies that exploit this.

Yes, you are correct, but he is also right.You see, since the 70's we have seen women enter the workforce in the west, over a third of women live single. This is because the advancing technology, Falling Rate of Profit, had ended the labor shortage in America, and America is the cultural center of the capitalist world, the Empire. So as machines replaced live labor and the Profitability of production sector fell, there was no need for Capitalists to pay higher wages like they had done for 150 years of US Capitalist history, to serve that labor shortage. So workers stopped getting payed more, but produced more, were lured to buy more stuff and had to take on debt, extra jobs etc. to pay for that; so women entered the labor market in a massive way, took a wage paying job and basically ended the societal norm of the Patriarchy.

The Productive Forces, i pray to them...

[Agent Ducky]

Yes, you are correct, but he is also right.You see, since the 70's we have seen women enter the workforce in the west, over a third of women live single. This is because the advancing technology, Falling Rate of Profit, had ended the labor shortage in America, and America is the cultural center of the capitalist world, the Empire. So as machines replaced live labor and the Profitability of production sector fell, there was no need for Capitalists to pay higher wages like they had done for 150 years of US Capitalist history, to serve that labor shortage. So workers stopped getting payed more, but produced more, were lured to buy more stuff and had to take on debt, extra jobs etc. to pay for that; so women entered the labor market in a massive way, took a wage paying job and basically ended the societal norm of the Patriarchy.

The Productive Forces, i pray to them...
I understand where you're going with that, but it still didn't end patriarchy. It just gave patriarchy a new face: in which women work but are paid less because they are somehow inferior. Women are working, but they're still not equal, and therefore patriarchy lives on.

[Eagle_Syr]

You deserve worse. Why the hostility? We will disagree on alot more, not just you and me, but leftists in general.


And it just so happens these cultures operated under similar mode of production.

I don't think all human behavior depends simply on the mode of production. Evidence suggests otherwise.


There isn't a human nature to change. There is, however, a system which necessitates greed that can be destroyed.

There are universal human qualities and emotions; universal human archetypes; universal perspectives.


Some of it is. In regards to social organization of genders, it's not. It exists in accordance to the mode of production.
So biology has nothing whatsoever to do with gender culture?


So why does it end there for you? Why is the bourgeois family structure a "choice", but capitalism is not? That's called inconsistent materialism.
Monogamy is not "bourgeois"


Some "behavioral" traits among humans do exist regardless of the mode of production in each circumstance, such as shitting, anger, and so on. The way humans are organized, however, isn't something that's hard wired.
Those traits necessarily impact the way we organize


I'd go as far as saying that even genetically, the mode of production shaped what is "hard wired". Evolution and Marxism go together hand in hand, as a matter of fact. I agree. But the human species has been around far longer than civilization itself - by up to 200,000 years. That's a whole lot of evolution that wasn't impacted by "modes of production", and was (and is) impacted by sexual selection


So even though the Women chose to stay in those abusive relationships, it doesn't still make it a "choice" in our sense. Because they lacked the required mechanisms to make a choice otherwise.

But what about women who choose to be "feminine" even when communism is realized? If you truly believe in choice, you should be fine with this.



Not formally, perhaps. You are the former, though.
I'm neither, comrade



The qualities you described were counter revolutionary.
My opposition to the capitalist mode of production doesn't mean opposition to literally everything that defines the human condition today


We can. Gender has always changed. We not only can, we will.
You can't literally do away with men and women as distinct sexes. You can change the perception of gender, but I imagine there will still be qualities which manifest themselves in both genders despite your best efforts.




You didn't come close to thourougly addressing my post. Try again. You just declared things.

What post?

[Quail]

I never said men should do whatever they like. On the contrary, I said one partner would take care of the domestic work and the other would go out to labor. I never specified which gender would do which - that is up to the individuals in the relationship. Both of them, thus, contribute to the community.

As Ducky said, what the fuck is wrong with sharing the domestic labour?


No, I am admiring femininity itself, which does exist. Again, I don't think men and women are the same, and both of them have particular "spheres" (for lack of a better term) of characteristics. That could be a very healthy part of the culture.
What is "femininity" but a bunch of patriarchal bullshit?

How can "separate spheres" for men and women be a healthy part of culture? I can't figure out why you're too dense to understand that even without any physical force, if gender roles exist people will be pressured into conforming to the social norms.


As long as we aren't legally forcing anything on anybody, and not ostracizing those who don't conform, I don't see the problem. Because there will still be feminine women in the ideal communist society
There will be all kinds of women in a communist society, hence why we don't want gender roles to pressure them into feeling that they have to conform to your stupid sexist idea of femininity


Nudists would disagree.
lol wut
There is a world of difference between being discriminated against because of a quality you were born with, such as your gender or sexuality, and the fact you happen to like walking around naked. I can't even believe you made such a stupid and ridiculous comparison.


No. Again, acknowledgement of our differences isn't oppression or sexism. Behavioral differences between the sexes are observed in other species, too.
You go beyond acknowledging biological differences though; you go on to say that because there are biological differences, then there should exist defined roles in society for men and women.

One glaringly obvious issue with this assertion is that gender goes beyond the male/female binary. What about intersex and trans people? Where do they fit into your gendered society? They don't; by defining roles for men and women, you're setting a whole load off people up for discrimination.

Another point to make is that we're far beyond a hunter-gather society where men hunt because they're strong and women look after children because they have breasts. It doesn't serve any purpose to divide activities into "male" and "female" activities because we're all capable of doing them and people of all genders should be free to do things that they enjoy without feeling like an outcast or a freak for deviating from bullshit social norms.



To be honest, I think you're a sexist arsehole who doesn't have a clue. People have explained to you again and again why your arguments are wrong and why you have a sexist view of women, but you just can't seem to get it into your skull.

[Eagle_Syr]

As Ducky said, what the fuck is wrong with sharing the domestic labour? Nothing. Although I think children should always have a parent at home, but nothing is wrong with sharing the labor. Or dividing it.


How can "separate spheres" for men and women be a healthy part of culture? I can't figure out why you're too dense to understand that even without any physical force, if gender roles exist people will be pressured into conforming to the social norms.
Social norms will always exist.


There will be all kinds of women in a communist society, hence why we don't want gender roles to pressure them into feeling that they have to conform to your stupid sexist idea of femininity
Sure, some won't be what I describe as "feminine". I agree.


There is a world of difference between being discriminated against because of a quality you were born with, such as your gender or sexuality, and the fact you happen to like walking around naked. I can't even believe you made such a stupid and ridiculous comparison.
But it isn't. Why are people forced to wear clothing? By the way, I'm not a nudist. I'm saying that people are all forced to clothe themselves, and nudists feel this is unnatural and oppressive.


You go beyond acknowledging biological differences though; you go on to say that because there are biological differences, then there should exist defined roles in society for men and women. I'm saying that there can be, yes.


One glaringly obvious issue with this assertion is that gender goes beyond the male/female binary. What about intersex and trans people? Where do they fit into your gendered society? They don't; by defining roles for men and women, you're setting a whole load off people up for discrimination. I've never understood trans-sex people. Here's an interesting point, though: why do you think some people are trans-sex, if there isn't some quality that they possess that makes them identify with the other sex?


Another point to make is that we're far beyond a hunter-gather society where men hunt because they're strong and women look after children because they have breasts. It doesn't serve any purpose to divide activities into "male" and "female" activities because we're all capable of doing them and people of all genders should be free to do things that they enjoy without feeling like an outcast or a freak for deviating from bullshit social norms.
I agree. I never said people should feel like outcasts or freaks.


To be honest, I think you're a sexist arsehole who doesn't have a clue. People have explained to you again and again why your arguments are wrong and why you have a sexist view of women, but you just can't seem to get it into your skull.
I think you're reacting too defensively. Kinda like people who resort to cries of racism whenever somebody even brings up race.

I suppose all of this is irrelevant since, as you said, there will be different kinds of women and I can just find the one I like, because undoubtedly some will be feminine.

[X5N]

I disagree with this part. It's quite obvious, looking at biology and sports performance, that men are—on average—more athletic.

This is due to "male" hormone, testosterone, which males produce at a far greater rate than women (20 times more).



This gives men an athletic advantage over women.

I know that, but I was thinking of "athletic" in terms of like, propensity to be a runner or play football or something like that, not athletic in terms of more muscle mass and stuff.

[Agent Ducky]

Eagle, I wanna know how you define "femininity," and why you think that should be something defined by society instead of each individual woman defining her own femininity.
Because if you accept that definition, your whole argument becomes moot. If society's definition of femininity matched this definition, there would be no gender roles, enforced or not. Why do you cling so strongly to society's definition of gender?

[Eagle_Syr]

Eagle, I wanna know how you define "femininity," and why you think that should be something defined by society instead of each individual woman defining her own femininity.
Because if you accept that definition, your whole argument becomes moot. If society's definition of femininity matched this definition, there would be no gender roles, enforced or not. Why do you cling so strongly to society's definition of gender?

I'm not beyond admitting when I'm wrong, and I think I approached my argument in this thread all wrong.

The feminine qualities I described are products of culture, by definition. It may be the case that the biological differences between men and women manifested themselves in cultural gender norms, but yes, at this point in time, gender norms are culturally established.

Now, that being the case, your question is: why do I defend culturally defined gender norms, culturally defined femininity?

My response is, I don't see it as problematic. But since there are (using contemporary language) feminine men and masculine women, I shouldn't be using the terms feminine and masculine. Rather, I simply prefer feminine (the modern meaning of the term) women

But I do defend my argument that there will be manifestations of behavior in the genders regardless of the mode of production. I think it would be natural.

[Eagle_Syr]

And another point which I brought up, but will re-emphasize here: would trans-gender people exist in a stateless, classless society?

After all, why do trans-gender people undergo the change if there is not some reason why they feel uncomfortable in the gender they were born with? Obviously, they identify with the other gender, which clearly implies that there is something to identify with

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I understand where you're going with that, but it still didn't end patriarchy. It just gave patriarchy a new face: in which women work but are paid less because they are somehow inferior. Women are working, but they're still not equal, and therefore patriarchy lives on.

Yes, you are correct. There is still discrimination against women on quite a large scale, but we cannot say that there is still the Patriarchy!, that relationship that existed between men and women based on the original material conditions of underdeveloped productive forces where the man was the majorly, unquestioned, "natural", socially accepted superior over and ruler over women and which arguably lived on until the cultural revolution of the 60's/70's; but not today, even the conservatives in Europe do not talk that women should be suppressed or that men should be superior (OK, maybe one guy, namely Erdogan, but he is a fasch... but we in the most advanced capitalist societies in west have lived through liberal capitalism the last 30-40 years) as we have a female Chancellor in Germany now etc.

Women in Germany are paid 20% less on average than their male colleagues, high ranking positions are still occupied disproportionately by men, female consumption of psychopharmica drugs is a lot more than men showing a more overall stressed female sex etc., yes. But, the male sex still works longer proletarian hours at the job than females, lives shorter lives, still has the societal pressure of having to be the "strong" part of gender roles which is most likely a large factor in males' higher global suicide rate than women etc.; the pre-supposed gender roles harm everybody today as they are outdated, and have been since a long time, to our advanced productive forces.

"The traditions of the past generations weigh like a stone on the minds of the living" -Marx

[Agent Ducky]

I meant in a more historical context as in when women were first joining the workforce. The whole reason there was a market for their labor is because it was much cheaper.

[Le Socialiste]

And another point which I brought up, but will re-emphasize here: would trans-gender people exist in a stateless, classless society?

After all, why do trans-gender people undergo the change if there is not some reason why they feel uncomfortable in the gender they were born with? Obviously, they identify with the other gender, which clearly implies that there is something to identify with

You're confusing gender with sex; gender may be defined as the behavioral characteristics and mannerisms ascribed specifically to one's sex. A person's sex has to do with the look and makeup of their genitalia. So we can say that gender has to do with various social norms and roles that may or may not be applicable depending on one's sex (genitalia). In order to understand how our perceptions of sex and gender are socially constructed one must realize that the former can't be categorized - sex is a spectrum, with countless differences and functions. The fact that we (in the U.S) only recognize two (male and female) contributes to how gender roles have developed - and continue to develop - in this country. Our definitions of femininity and masculinity must fall into one or the other category because of the artificial divisions separating them - it has little to nothing to do with nature.

Therefore, if society only recognizes the ideal feminine woman and masculine man, those that may be biologically/physically 'male' or 'female' but identify more with the characteristics/mannerisms of the opposite sex may believe that they should adopt a look and/or body that reflects this. If gender roles ceased to exist (which by extension means lack of enforcement), gender itself would no longer be confined to two narrow categories; rather, it would reflect the diversity of the sexes as opposed to just a few. If people could act and behave however they wished without worrying about social pressures to emulate male and female norms we'd still see 'trans-gender' people, but they would probably not be defined as such: just people picking or choosing what they're most comfortable with. Anybody with more experience or authority on the matter could correct me if I'm wrong on this, I'm only writing about what I've read and learned through various classes and studies.

[Eagle_Syr]

Therefore, if society only recognizes the ideal feminine woman and masculine man, those that may be biologically/physically 'male' or 'female' but identify more with the characteristics/mannerisms of the opposite sex may believe that they should adopt a look and/or body that reflects this. If gender roles ceased to exist (which by extension means lack of enforcement), gender itself would no longer be confined to two narrow categories; rather, it would reflect the diversity of the sexes as opposed to just a few. If people could act and behave however they wished without worrying about social pressures to emulate male and female norms we'd still see 'trans-gender' people, but they would probably not be defined as such: just people picking or choosing what they're most comfortable with. Based on what? It logically implies a difference between the genders

Also, is it oppressive and sexist that there are male and female restrooms?
Male and female clothing?
Is it oppressive and sexist if a woman wears make-up? And men, in general, do not?

[#FF0000]

Does feminism mean all concepts of femininity and beauty need to be forgotten?

No. Expanded, if anything.


The human body is sexual; it has beauty, and it can be artistically portrayed with ideal forms. Why does feminism mean both men and women cannot be admired aesthetically?

Feminism doesn't posit this. Maybe some rad-fem folks but nah this isn't a mainstream opinion at all, if there's even anyone out there that believes this.

[#FF0000]

Social norms will always exist.

This is sort of a cop-out. "Social norms will always exist" doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be challenged or changed.

Sure, some won't be what I describe as "feminine". I agree.


But it isn't. Why are people forced to wear clothing? By the way, I'm not a nudist. I'm saying that people are all forced to clothe themselves, and nudists feel this is unnatural and oppressive.

That is a sanitation issue, dogg. Except for the whole "gotta wear a shirt/top" thing which is dumb. A lot of places are letting people walk around topless w/ no penalty though which I think is fine.


I'm saying that there can be, yes.

Well yeah there can be -- and there are. And that's kind of bullshit. I don't think what one's born with should put limitations on their life.


I've never understood trans-sex people. Here's an interesting point, though: why do you think some people are trans-sex, if there isn't some quality that they possess that makes them identify with the other sex?

idk. I don't really care, either, since it doesn't really affect me and it's none of my business.


I think you're reacting too defensively. Kinda like people who resort to cries of racism whenever somebody even brings up race.

People get frustrated when other people are being willfully dense, bro.

[bcbm]

And to BCBM: I recognize your intentions are solid, and you've made some decent arguments. But in truth there doesn't exist a biological instinct or nature that would determine the social structure that humans organize themselves into. If we were naturally communal, capitalism wouldn't exist, and neither would patriarchy. Humans act in mere correlation with material conditions, meaning a Bourgeois scum is just as human as the rest of us. Capitalism is not an abomination of Human nature, simply because 'Human nature' as we see it doesn't exist.

yes and no. we are remarkably adaptable, indeed this is one of our strongest traits and has allowed us to thrive across the entire planet but i don't think this means there is no 'human nature' at all. we evolved in a certain way and 'in the wild' exhibit certain behaviors across almost all known cultures and i think its useful to look at this. and specifically with the argument of sex, it isn't just social but also biological.


If we were naturally communal, capitalism wouldn't exist, and neither would patriarchy.

just want to address this separately because i disagree. our natural state, or as close to that as humans have, is communal but that doesn't mean it can't change. a cat is naturally an aggressive predator but can still become a warm loving pet. humans can be 'domesticated' too and indeed the introduction of class society and even the transition to capitalism did this.


Most human societies are monogamous, actually, but that is irrelevant.

no.


Although, scientists discuss the evolution of monogamy in humans as if it is the prevailing mating strategy among Homo sapiens, only approximately 17.8% (100) of 563 societies sampled in Murdock’s Atlas of World Cultures has any form of monogamy (although these account for much larger than 17.8% of the World population).[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#cite_note-Murdock.2C1981-49) Therefore, “genetic monogamy appears to be extremely rare in humans,” and “social monogamy is not common, … often reduc[ing] to serial polygyny in a biological sense”.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#cite_note-Low.2C_2003-40) This means that monogamy is not now and probably never was the predominant mating system among the hominid lineage.


The facts you present actually better explain my argument: take a look at polygamous societies, and evolutionary theory explains the distinction in characteristics between males and females. This is due to sexual selection; this is why human males tend to be larger, hairier, and more aggressive than human females.

um i dont think anyone was suggesting there are not differences between men and women physically.


Maybe a few in some random jungle, but no major society has ever been matriarchal.

most of human history was probably spent in matriarchal-egalitarian societies. also crete and sumer are believed to have been matriarchal and the iroquois so not exactly 'some random jungle.'


Maybe. But again, some women will still choose to be feminine.

gender categories as we know them will probably be meaningless.

[#FF0000]

Maybe not, but again, no society has ever been matriarchal, and I don't think that just because we oppose class oppression we need to suddenly oppose the very idea of family or child-rearing

This isn't true. There were matriarchal hunter/gatherer societies.

Also how are men and women different exactly? What do you mean by this?

[Eagle_Syr]

This is sort of a cop-out. "Social norms will always exist" doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be challenged or changed. That's true, but Rafiq and some other members are acting like every single social norm that exists today must be toppled, that the complete culture must change, which I don't agree with. Some of our norms predate capitalism.



That is a sanitation issue, dogg. Except for the whole "gotta wear a shirt/top" thing which is dumb. A lot of places are letting people walk around topless w/ no penalty though which I think is fine.
Nonsense. Being naked doesn't mean you are a "sanitation issue".

Do realize I am playing devil's advocate here; I don't support nudism.


Well yeah there can be -- and there are. And that's kind of bullshit. I don't think what one's born with should put limitations on their life.

Nobody here is calling for limitations on anybody's life.


idk. I don't really care, either, since it doesn't really affect me and it's none of my business.
But it does demonstrate my point


People get frustrated when other people are being willfully dense, bro. But I'm not. Being a leftist doesn't mean you have to oppose voluntary gender roles.



no. Most of the world is monagamous, and when it isn't, it's usually oppressive.


um i dont think anyone was suggesting there are not differences between men and women physically.
And what makes you think these physiological differences wouldn't manifest themselves in behavioral differences?



most of human history was probably spent in matriarchal-egalitarian societies. also crete and sumer are believed to have been matriarchal and the iroquois so not exactly 'some random jungle.'
Sumer was patriarchal, just like the rest of the Middle East has always been. Virtually all major civilizations have been patriarchal



Also how are men and women different exactly? What do you mean by this?
We are different evolutionarily.

[#FF0000]

That's true, but Rafiq and some other members are acting like every single social norm that exists today must be toppled, that the complete culture must change, which I don't agree with. Some of our norms predate capitalism.

They don't pre-date class society tho.


Nonsense. Being naked doesn't mean you are a "sanitation issue"Yeaaah being naked from the waist-down in public is sort of a sanitation issue.


Nobody here is calling for limitations on anybody's life.I'm saying that's what gender roles do is all.



But it does demonstrate my pointNo it doesn't. If someone "feels" they're supposed to be a woman, then hey, it's how they feel. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that there's anything beyond social conditioning when it comes to gender identity, but whatever.


But I'm not. Being a leftist doesn't mean you have to oppose voluntary gender roles.These things aren't voluntary, though.


We are different evolutionarily.What does this even mean?

[Eagle_Syr]

They don't pre-date class society though Neither does romantic love, or many other aspects of the human condition.


Yeaaah being naked from the waist-down in public is sort of a sanitation issue.
Explain


I'm saying that's what gender roles do is all.
Okay



No it doesn't. If someone "feels" they're supposed to be a woman, then hey, it's how they feel. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that there's anything beyond social conditioning when it comes to gender identity, but whatever. So there would not be trans-sex people in a communist society


These things aren't voluntary, though.
Nothing will ever be truly voluntary, then, since we live in a society and not by ourselves in the jungle

Men are just as oppressed as women are


What does this even mean?
It means natural selection has selected qualities impact human behavior, which could possibly differ by sex

[bcbm]

Most of the world is monagamous, and when it isn't, it's usually oppressive.

um no scientific evidence that i already posted shows most societies are not monogamous. most of human history seems unlikely to have been monogamous. among the 'monogamous' societies, infidelity and divorce are fairly common, to say nothing of all the sex single people have. monogamy is a product of class society.


And what makes you think these physiological differences wouldn't manifest themselves in behavioral differences?

i dont recall saying that what are you even talking about? there are general trends in behavior or whatever, sure, but there is nothing universal and most of what we consider 'feminine' or 'masculine' behaviors/traits are socially constructed.


Sumer was patriarchal, just like the rest of the Middle East has always been. Virtually all major civilizations have been patriarchal


according to Rohrlich, "[i]n the early Sumerian city-states 'matriarchy seems to have left something more than a trace.'"


Men are just as oppressed as women are

not really

[Eagle_Syr]

um no scientific evidence that i already posted shows most societies are not monogamous. most of human history seems unlikely to have been monogamous. among the 'monogamous' societies, infidelity and divorce are fairly common, to say nothing of all the sex single people have. monogamy is a product of class society.

You forget to make a distinction between polygamous societies where men dominate and have many women, and those where one woman has many men. The overwhelming majority have been the former, and have been more oppressive than monagamous societies.

Monagamy is based on love, I like to think.



i dont recall saying that what are you even talking about? there are general trends in behavior or whatever, sure, but there is nothing universal and most of what we consider 'feminine' or 'masculine' behaviors/traits are socially constructed.

From what? Mere whim?
Why is it that, across different cultures, "masculine" and "feminine" seem to take on very similar meanings?
It isn't by chance.


not really
Yes, really. If gender roles oppress women, they oppress men, too.

[bcbm]

You forget to make a distinction between polygamous societies where men dominate and have many women, and those where one woman has many men. The overwhelming majority have been the former, and have been more oppressive than monagamous societies.

most of human history was polyamorous band societies.


Monagamy is based on love, I like to think.

monogamy is a social relation to control women's sexual activity and guarantee paternity in order to pass on property.


From what? Mere whim?

well, basically.


Why is it that, across different cultures, "masculine" and "feminine" seem to take on very similar meanings?

this isn't the case though. different cultures have had many different types of masculinity (not to mention it evolves over time, our idea of masculine is different than the victorians for example) and what overlaps they are seem pretty easily attributable to similar characteristics within the societies.


Yes, really. If gender roles oppress women, they oppress men, too.

that doesn't mean it occurs equally

[Eagle_Syr]

monogamy is a social relation to control women's sexual activity and guarantee paternity in order to pass on property.

What happens if a man loves a woman and wants to spend the rest of his life with her?


well, basically.

That's a completely irrational position


this isn't the case though. different cultures have had many different types of masculinity (not to mention it evolves over time, our idea of masculine is different than the victorians for example) and what overlaps they are seem pretty easily attributable to similar characteristics within the societies.
Fair point, but many qualities are recurrent


that doesn't mean it occurs equally

Why not? Social pressures do oppress men. We have pressure to succeed, and if we don't, our value in society is diminished; and we have this pressure to assume responsibility, to always present a tough face to the world; we have great stress placed upon us.

[bcbm]

What happens if a man loves a woman and wants to spend the rest of his life with her?

missing the point.


That's a completely irrational position

no its not humans make shit up all the time


Fair point, but many qualities are recurrent

because of structural similarities


Why not? Social pressures do oppress men. We have pressure to succeed, and if we don't, our value in society is diminished; and we have this pressure to assume responsibility, to always present a tough face to the world; we have great stress placed upon us.

i didnt say men arent oppressed i said they are not oppressed equally. 'patriarchy' think about it

[Eagle_Syr]

missing the point. How so? Some people prefer to have one partner.


no its not humans make shit up all the time

Not out of no where. The evidence I presented (similarities across cultures) suggests universality in the human condition, which can logically only be explained in the sense that there is a pattern.


because of structural similarities

This could explain it. Why have these structures historically preferred men, though?


i didnt say men arent oppressed i said they are not oppressed equally. 'patriarchy' think about it
Just as oppressed.

[Agent Ducky]

Just as oppressed.

Nope. People of either gender who go against their gender role are stigmatized, but it doesn't change the fact that the masculine gender role is the one with the power.

[#FF0000]

Neither does romantic love, or many other aspects of the human condition.

I don't really follow what this has to do with anything. There's nothing wrong with the concept of 'romantic love' or anything like that.


Explainyou are at a restaurant and there's a dude with his exposed genitals flappin all over the seat next to you.

sanitation concern, dogg.


So there would not be trans-sex people in a communist society
Maybe, maybe not. I like to think it'd be like something out of the Culture novels where people just get sex changes to male and female and back and forth whenever they feel like it because, fuck it, it's the future.


Nothing will ever be truly voluntary, then, since we live in a society and not by ourselves in the jungleNope. People are influenced by society and by other things but they're still acting voluntarily for the most part. The point is to get rid of these kinds of cultural attitudes like sexism and chauvinism because they impede on people's agency.


Men are just as oppressed as women are
Nah. I'd say women have to deal with a lot of specific extra bullshit that men don't have to, on top of all the shit that men have to.


It means natural selection has selected qualities impact human behavior, which could possibly differ by sexYeah, I realize evolutionary psych is a thing, but with everything I've read it seriously seems like nurture trumps nature. Humans aren't slaves to their biology as a lot of people like to make it seem.

[bcbm]

How so? Some people prefer to have one partner.

good for them, but that is not why monogamy was started.


Not out of no where. The evidence I presented (similarities across cultures)

present some of this evidence.


This could explain it. Why have these structures historically preferred men, though?

when human beings transitioned to agricultural living men needed a way to be sure their kids were their kids so they enslaved women.


Just as oppressed.

if it oppressed everyone equally why is it called patriarchy? for fucks sake, quote right above


preferred men

[Eagle_Syr]

Nope. People of either gender who go against their gender role are stigmatized, but it doesn't change the fact that the masculine gender role is the one with the power.

That "power" creates alot of social pressures to perform, succeed, and live up to some standard. When women fail, nobody cares. When men fail, they are judged by society.

Power can be oppressive.




you are at a restaurant and there's a dude with his exposed genitals flappin all over the seat next to you.

sanitation concern, dogg. That's not nudity, that's public masturbation. You are twisting my statement.

More like: you are at a restaurant, and there's a naked guy sitting at another table.


Nope. People are influenced by society and by other things but they're still acting voluntarily for the most part. The point is to get rid of these kinds of cultural attitudes like sexism and chauvinism because they impede on people's agency.
So what determines what is oppressive and what isn't?


Nah. I'd say women have to deal with a lot of specific extra bullshit that men don't have to, on top of all the shit that men have to.
Maybe, but see my response above. I could easily argue that men have far more social pressure on them than women.


good for them, but that is not why monogamy was started But that means some couples will be monagamous under communism


present some of this evidence.

The warrior culture, for example


when human beings transitioned to agricultural living men needed a way to be sure their kids were their kids so they enslaved women.
But why did men "enslave" women and not the other way around?

Why is it that, virtually universally, men were the ones on top?


if it oppressed everyone equally why is it called patriarchy? for fucks sake, quote right above
So the name is what makes it oppressive?

[#FF0000]

That's not nudity, that's public masturbation. You are twisting my statement.

No he's just sittin there w/ his nuts all over the chair.


So what determines what is oppressive and what isn't?

Does a law or custom or practice put barriers that limit people based on their identity? Then it's oppressive!


Maybe, but see my response above. I could easily argue that men have far more social pressure on them than women.

Yeah. I think you'd be wrong, too.

[Eagle_Syr]

No he's just sittin there w/ his nuts all over the chair. And?

Your hands are probably more unsanitary than your sack


Does a law or custom or practice put barriers that limit people based on their identity? Then it's oppressive!
What does that even mean?

Wearing clothes is oppressive to nudists


Yeah. I think you'd be wrong, too.
I think I'd be right. That's why more men commit suicide, and when career men fail, it is blown out of proportion and their lives are essentially over.

[#FF0000]

And?

Your hands are probably more unsanitary than your sack

Yeah but you need those to be out all the time. that's why we just settle for hand sanitizer.



What does that even mean?Just what it said! If a law or custom makes it difficult or impossible for someone to do a thing based on nothing but their identity, then it's oppressive. For example! Women in Saudi Arabia couldn't drive cars. That is oppressive! Another example: women in America may be denied access to birth control on the whim of their employer or their doctor. That is oppressive!

See?


Wearing clothes is oppressive to nudists

How so? Everybody has to wear clothes, and there's no special punishment for being a nudist -- just for being nude in most places. Keep in mind there are places where you can run around naked publicly, too.

But hey, let's end this here and say you're right and that public nudity isn't unsanitary. Then you're right! No reason people shouldn't be able to run around naked. Go hogwild.


I think I'd be right. That's why more men commit suicide, and when career men fail, it is blown out of proportion and their lives are essentially over.Mhm, and it'd be interesting to see why men commit suicide, but I will guarantee you neither of these things are specifically because they are men!

[Eagle_Syr]

How so? Everybody has to wear clothes, and there's no special punishment for being a nudist -- just for being nude in most places. Keep in mind there are places where you can run around naked publicly, too.

But hey, let's end this here and say you're right and that public nudity isn't unsanitary. Then you're right! No reason people shouldn't be able to run around naked. Go hogwild. Awesome! To hell with any social norms at all!


Mhm, and it'd be interesting to see why men commit suicide, but I will guarantee you neither of these things are specifically because they are men!

They are because of the undue pressures placed on men by society. When you have the image of being "the man", and you don't meet expectations, you feel worthless, oppressed, "less of a man"

[#FF0000]

Awesome! To hell with any social norms at all!

Hey, if wearing clothes is a matter of oppression and not of "yo we don't want people's bare-ass butts rubbin up on the chairs at mcdonalds" then w/e!


They are because of the undue pressures placed on men by society. When you have the image of being "the man", and you don't meet expectations, you feel worthless, oppressed, "less of a man"Sure, but isn't this a result of patriarchal gender roles in the first place?

Plus I think you're being vague here anyway! Fucking something up at a job doesn't emasculate someone hahaha.

[bcbm]

But that means some couples will be monagamous under communism

again, good for them, but like i said i think such a fundamental change in social and productive relations would engender massive shifts in all manner of human relationships and judging by what we know of human history in communal groups, monogamy seems unlikely to be common.


The warrior culture, for example'oh people fight' isn't exactly a striking commonality. the actual cultures surrounding war vary quite a bit from society to society and the similarities that exist are largely due to the structures surrounding them, though even then with fairly large differences.


But why did men "enslave" women and not the other way around?
Why is it that, virtually universally, men were the ones on top?because men starting caring about paternity in order to pass on property. women, probably not so much. as for the how, perhaps a greater capacity for organized violence or it could have been just a slow but steady shift in attitudes as humans transitioned to agriculture and class division.


So the name is what makes it oppressive?god you're dense. tell me is anyone trying to legislate your reproductive health?

[Quail]

I still think the nudism comparison is ridiculous and actually a bit offensive. But w/e. I don't have a problem with nudists. It's funny actually because patriarchy means that if you get too hot and fancy stripping off, you can whip your shirt off, no problem. If I did,tgat I'd be met with shock and people telling me to cover up because as a woman my breasts (those things for feeding babies) are so sexualised they're seen as inherently sexual and somehow obscene.

The gender roles for men are oppressive, but it's not quite in the same ballpark as the oppression women face. People keep explaining it to you but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Why don't you try for a moment to put yourself in a woman's shoes? The problem with revleft is,that every time I post in this suvforum there is always some fucking man telling me that patriarchy isn't bad for me and actually it's men who suffer most. Get a fucking clue.

[#FF0000]

The way I look at it, things can definitely be shitty for dudes -- but it is rarely because men are men, and when it is, it's because of the same patriarchal gender roles that women are subjected to.

Regardless of anything, it seems to me that patriarchy means that men are seen as actors and that women are seen as that which is acted upon.

Oh, men are drafted into armies and are less likely to gain custody of their children for no reason? Thank the dumb "men are warriors, women are nurturers" idea, the one which negatively impacts women pretty often compared to how often it inconveniences men.

[RedAtheist]

"The human body is sexual; it has beauty, and it can be artistically portrayed with ideal forms. Why does feminism mean both men and women cannot be admired aesthetically?"


Feminism doesn't posit this. Maybe some rad-fem folks but nah this isn't a mainstream opinion at all, if there's even anyone out there that believes this.

Actually there are people who disapprove of men and women being evaluated on the basis of characteristics that are almost entirely genetic and cause no real harm/benefit (e.g. women with larger breasts do not live longer than women with smaller breasts, they aren't more likely to be nice people and they haven't worked hard to get them, so why should a women be praised is she has large breasts, when small breasted women do not receive similar praise?) Maybe I am the only one who disapproves of this (I'm not part of rad-fem in case you were wondering) but that does not make me wrong. I see absolutely no reason why a person with certain physical characteristics (which often have nothing to do with health) should be celebrated for those physical characteristics and people with different physical characters insulted (even if they are simply not praised for their physcial characteristics while others are, that is still discrimination.)

Would you praise someone for being white? No. So why praise them for having large breasts, small hips/waist, the 'correct' facial proportions (e.g. the right sized nose, which is surely a genetic feature), broad shoulders (in the case of men) or any other physical feature which does not in any way make better than those who do not have it and therefore worthy of praise. Any time you 'appreciate' a body, you are appreciating that body over other bodies. You are not somehow appreciating human bodies as a whole since we do not all look alike.

Next time try not to assume that because you find an opinions to be ridiculous there must be no one out there who agrees with it. Believe it or not, people who are considered unattractive do exist and do have the capacity to resist discrimination.

If you think my opinion is too radical, but at least accept that the beauty standards of our society need to be challenged, because they are far too strict, I suggest you read Eagle's comment more carefully. He said "human bodies should be artistically portrayed with ideal forms", which strikes me as a pretentious way of saying, "there should be images which present unrealistically attractive caricature of men and women rather than presenting men and women as they really are"

[RedAtheist]

The Problem with 'Feminity'

Feel free to copy this and post it on any other thread where someone is going on about how there is nothing wrong with being 'feminine', I feel this would make a good summary response to these kind of arguments.

Many people have thus far pointed out that gender is a social construct. I think it is important to note that socially constructed gender roles are not arbitrary (i.e. the list of 'feminine' traits and the list of 'masculine' traits are not random) they are about power. All stereotypically masculine traits relate in some way to being powerful (e.g. physical aggression, lack of concern for other people, an interest in serving oneself, indepence, etc) and all stereotypically feminine traits related to being powerless (e.g. gentleness, a desire to nuture, an interest in serving others, dependence on others, etc.)

When the traits labeled 'masculine' are put together in a single individual, the resulting individual is more likely to occupy a position of power and influence in society. When the traits labeled 'feminine' are put together in a single individual, the individual will innevitably end up playing a submissive role in society. It is easy to see why some people would prefer to be around 'feminine' people (after all the female gender stereotype is about pleasing others) but this contradicts the communist ideal, which is about a world free of classes, where no one dominates any one else. Simply put if you are for 'femininity' you are for submission. If you are for submission you are not for full communism.

Does this mean all 'girly' traits are bad? No it just means that we should be careful when picking which feminine traits we want to promote and not take them to extreme. It's okay for both women and men to be compassionate and nurturing, but not to the extent that they give up all sense of self-interest and are willing to preform unpaid manual labour (in a society where other jobs receive wages) on their own for sake of pleasing other people or base their decisions around what other people want (e.g. dressing in a way that intends to make them appear attractive to other people.) Likewise it is good to be assertive, but not to the extent that one starts dominating and exploiting others.

Instead of a society of 'feminine' and 'masculine' people, how about we aim for a society of kind, strong, independent, free and equal people, sharing society's more degrading duties until technology advancement, puts an end to them altogether.

[Lynx]

If everyone were feminine I believe society would become more civilized. I believe the opposite would occur if everyone had masculine traits. In that regard, I am in favor of people in general becoming more feminine in their behavior towards others. I don't view aggression and dominance as being desirable or necessary for our survival. We live in a multicultural, technologically advancing world. Communication and co-operation are key to resolving problems and have been for a long time. Although you wouldn't know this from watching the news or entertainment.

[Eagle_Syr]

again, good for them, but like i said i think such a fundamental change in social and productive relations would engender massive shifts in all manner of human relationships and judging by what we know of human history in communal groups, monogamy seems unlikely to be common What about romantic love? That exists between two people, therefore relationships would be monagamous


tell me is anyone trying to legislate your reproductive health?
No, but people do tend to draft us men and ship us out to fight wars first.

I still think the nudism comparison is ridiculous and actually a bit offensive. No, it isn't. Some people believe to be naked is natural and good. But they have to wear clothes because society says so.


The gender roles for men are oppressive, but it's not quite in the same ballpark as the oppression women face. People keep explaining it to you but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Why don't you try for a moment to put yourself in a woman's shoes? The problem with revleft is,that every time I post in this suvforum there is always some fucking man telling me that patriarchy isn't bad for me and actually it's men who suffer most. Get a fucking clue.

Men have undue responsibility placed on them. Men fight wars. Men are responsible when families live in poverty (the social perception, that is). Men have to be the problem solvers and leaders. If a man messes up at his career, the social ramifications are far different from women. Men are incarcerated more frequently. Etc





Would you praise someone for being white? No. So why praise them for having large breasts, small hips/waist, the 'correct' facial proportions (e.g. the right sized nose, which is surely a genetic feature), broad shoulders (in the case of men) or any other physical feature which does not in any way make better than those who do not have it and therefore worthy of praise. Any time you 'appreciate' a body, you are appreciating that body over other bodies. You are not somehow appreciating human bodies as a whole since we do not all look alike. I don't think attractiveness is purely subjective (because of evolution), but I do see your point. But maybe in the future science can make all future generations genetically healthy and physically beautiful. That would be the fairest thing.


He said "human bodies should be artistically portrayed with ideal forms", which strikes me as a pretentious way of saying, "there should be images which present unrealistically attractive caricature of men and women rather than presenting men and women as they really are"
A huge part of art is portrayal of the ideal.

[#FF0000]

What about romantic love? That exists between two people, therefore relationships would be monagamous

Who says romantic love can't exist between more people? Who says romantic love can't exist outside of a structured sort of relationship (e.g. marriage rather than two people just being together).

I don't really understand why what bcbm's saying is so difficult for you to accept -- social relations change as society changes. Marriage and interpersonal relationships haven't always worked the way they do now -- and they won't work the way they do now forever.



No, but people do tend to draft us men and ship us out to fight wars first.
No, it isn't. Some people believe to be naked is natural and good. But they have to wear clothes because society says so.

Again dude, it's a sanitation issue as I see it. But hey, if it turns out that it's not, then whatever and who cares -- let people go naked if they want. Whether or not clothes are oppressive is not what we're discussing here. I don't think they are, but that isn't what we're talking about. And if they are oppressive then I'd be a-okay with people going naked if they want too.

You do not discuss an issue by trying to compare it to another issue like that, dude. It just sidetracks the discussion towards the new subject and whether or not the comparison is accurate, instead of the topic at hand. Plus it can blow up in your face like it has over and over and over again throughout this thread. Stop it.


Men have undue responsibility placed on them. Men fight wars. Men are responsible when families live in poverty (the social perception, that is). Men have to be the problem solvers and leaders. If a man messes up at his career, the social ramifications are far different from women. Men are incarcerated more frequently. Etc

Let me copy/paste what I said not 4 posts ago.

The way I look at it, things can definitely be shitty for dudes -- but it is rarely because men are men, and when it is, it's because of the same patriarchal gender roles that women are subjected to.

Regardless of anything, it seems to me that patriarchy means that men are seen as actors and that women are seen as that which is acted upon.

Oh, men are drafted into armies and are less likely to gain custody of their children for no reason? Thank the dumb "men are warriors, women are nurturers" idea, the one which negatively impacts women pretty often compared to how often it inconveniences men.



I don't think attractiveness is purely subjective (because of evolution), but I do see your point. But maybe in the future science can make all future generations genetically healthy and physically beautiful. That would be the fairest thing.

Errrr attractiveness is purely subjective though, as evidenced by the fact that there is not a set, constant standard for beauty. What constitutes beauty has changed radically over the time and across cultures and societies.


A huge part of art is portrayal of the ideal.

An ideal which is not static in the least.

[electrostal]

Errrr attractiveness is purely subjective though, as evidenced by the fact that there is not a set, constant standard for beauty. What constitutes beauty has changed radically over the time and across cultures and societies.

I don't think it's purely subjective. Your statement doesn't take into account that there are more-less "dominant" standards about what most people would find beautiful. Of coure that perceptions of beauty have changed, but that was/is a social phenomena, and therefore can't , IMO, be labeled as something "purely subjective".

[#FF0000]

I don't think it's purely subjective. Your statement doesn't take into account that there are more-less "dominant" standards about what most people would find beautiful. Of coure that perceptions of beauty have changed, but that was/is a social phenomena, and therefore can't , IMO, be labeled as something "purely subjective".

But there is literally nothing constant about what is considered attractive. There might be some dominant standards now but that doesn't change the fact that they are still 1) hella subjective, and 2) honestly, relatively new.

[Eagle_Syr]

Who says romantic love can't exist between more people? Who says romantic love can't exist outside of a structured sort of relationship (e.g. marriage rather than two people just being together). There can be. I know I'll stay monagamous though, so as long as you don't force polygamy on my, I'm good.


You do not discuss an issue by trying to compare it to another issue like that, dude. It just sidetracks the discussion towards the new subject and whether or not the comparison is accurate, instead of the topic at hand. Plus it can blow up in your face like it has over and over and over again throughout this thread. Stop it.


Bringing up other issues highlights the inconsistency in the arguments presented. And my point about nudism has served me well. So it's okay to let people be naked in the streets?


Oh, men are drafted into armies and are less likely to gain custody of their children for no reason? Thank the dumb "men are warriors, women are nurturers" idea, the one which negatively impacts women pretty often compared to how often it inconveniences men.

Yes, being drafted and dying in a war is just an inconvenience, as opposed to wearing lipstick, oh the oppression!


Errrr attractiveness is purely subjective though, as evidenced by the fact that there is not a set, constant standard for beauty. What constitutes beauty has changed radically over the time and across cultures and societies
False. This flies in the face of Darwinian selection pressures.


But there is literally nothing constant about what is considered attractive. There might be some dominant standards now but that doesn't change the fact that they are still 1) hella subjective, and 2) honestly, relatively new.

See above.

[bcbm]

What about romantic love? That exists between two people, therefore relationships would be monagamous

romantic love can exist between many more than two people. historically it is an outlier and rarely have monogamous relationships been for the benefit of 'love.' where it does occur between two people it is usually fleeting and often interrupted by physical, mental and emotional infidelity. humans evolved as polyamorous (multiple partner) animals and the destruction of the social constructs that enforce monogamy will likely lead to a precipitous decline in monogamy. hell, this is already happening in many respects.


No, but people do tend to draft us men and ship us out to fight wars first.no they dont because the draft is insanely unpopular and destabilizes society. a volunteer army supported by increasing numbers of mercenaries is the preferred model

[Eagle_Syr]

romantic love can exist between many more than two people. historically it is an outlier and rarely have monogamous relationships been for the benefit of 'love.' where it does occur between two people it is usually fleeting and often interrupted by physical, mental and emotional infidelity. humans evolved as polyamorous (multiple partner) animals and the destruction of the social constructs that enforce monogamy will likely lead to a precipitous decline in monogamy. hell, this is already happening in many respects.

Well, you can do what you want; like I said, as long as you don't prohibit monagamy, I don't really care what other people do.


no they dont because the draft is insanely unpopular and destabilizes society. a volunteer army supported by increasing numbers of mercenaries is the preferred model But drafts did happen and conscription does happen.

[#FF0000]

There can be. I know I'll stay monagamous though, so as long as you don't force polygamy on my, I'm good.

Neat


Bringing up other issues highlights the inconsistency in the arguments presented. And my point about nudism has served me well. So it's okay to let people be naked in the streets?


I dunno what fantasy land you are living in where it served you well. Like I said, it's a sanitation issue. And if it's not, then sure why not let people go naked who cares.


Yes, being drafted and dying in a war is just an inconvenience, as opposed to wearing lipstick, oh the oppression!

Yo if you ever want to engage my points instead of bein a coward I'll be waiting here.


False. This flies in the face of Darwinian selection pressures.


Nope, sorry dude. Through a whole lot of history, being fat was considered attractive. That only started to change in the 19th century -- and then the idea of thin being desirable was only true for men. Pale skin was once considered ideal. In Ancient Rome, having a small penis was considered ideal. In the 80's (and today, sort of?), androgyny was the popular style and was considered attractive. I could go on about how popular notions of beauty have changed.

Again, this is a case of you thinking "well here is the little bit I know about science so let me just run with it" and falling flat on your face.

[#FF0000]

But drafts did happen and conscription does happen.

And again, that is a direct result of patriarchal gender roles.

[Eagle_Syr]

Nope, sorry dude. Through a whole lot of history, being fat was considered attractive. That only started to change in the 19th century -- and then the idea of thin being desirable was only true for men. Pale skin was once considered ideal. In Ancient Rome, having a small penis was considered ideal. In the 80's (and today, sort of?), androgyny was the popular style and was considered attractive. I could go on about how popular notions of beauty have changed. Totally agreed. But it pays more to look at what has been universally considered unattractive. Bad teeth, for example. It is undeniable that there are features in common which have been regarded as "attractive", and it is further undeniable that to human societies of old, beauty was a sign of health and therefore reproductive potential.

Evolutionary biology explains attractiveness very well.


Again, this is a case of you thinking "well here is the little bit I know about science so let me just run with it" and falling flat on your face.
Nope, considering I'm a science focus, I know more than "a little bit"
I think you think you are better than you actually are at addressing my arguments. You are the one who keeps bringing up "falling flat on one's face", apparently you think you are some great boxing champion?

[bcbm]

Well, you can do what you want; like I said, as long as you don't prohibit monagamy, I don't really care what other people do.

obviously there isnt going to be mandatory group sex or whatever


unfortunately


But drafts did happen and conscription does happen.

because the patriarchy believes women are weak flowers who should be ironing clothes, not getting their hands dirty with war. nobody denies that patriarchy has negative repercussions for men, of course it does. but the nature of the system is to benefit men. thats why its called patriarchy

[Eagle_Syr]

because the patriarchy believes women are weak flowers who should be ironing clothes, not getting their hands dirty with war. There are very real physiological reasons to separate combat units by sex (notice I said combat units). In Israel, women serve in their armed forces in womens' divisions.


nobody denies that patriarchy has negative repercussions for men, of course it does. but the nature of the system is to benefit men. thats why its called patriarchy

More like to serve some men.

[bcbm]

There are very real physiological reasons to separate combat units by sex (notice I said combat units). In Israel, women serve in their armed forces in womens' divisions.

we werent talking about separating combat units by sex


More like to serve some men.

the ideology of patriarchy is such that the poorest man and the richest man should both be in charge of their households

[#FF0000]

apparently you think you are some great boxing champion?

i'm the greatest

[bcbm]

float like a butterfly sting like a bee

[Eagle_Syr]

Well this conversation is dead, I think. I'm obviously outnumbered here.

[#FF0000]

sort of unfortunate the dude was banned i think.

maybe i am too hopeful in people changing their dumb ideas though.

[Agent Ducky]

sort of unfortunate the dude was banned i think.

maybe i am too hopeful in people changing their dumb ideas though.

Meh, that guy seemed pretty incorrigible. I was just waiting for that to happen.