Patriarchy and Capitalism [Archive]

Book O'Dead

26th June 2012, 21:31

Can anyone please explain how patriarchy and capitalism go hand in hand?

Supporting feminism seems Machiavellian at best as if the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It seems that opposing patriarchy is no different from believing in astrology. Yes, two things might coexist. That doesn't mean one created the other.

There are many myths, legends and fantasies attached to the concept of patriarchy.
But patriarchy exists as a social phenomenon and, subsequently as an ideology.

What is patriarchy? Very simply put, it is a system of society based largely on the assumption that males as fathers are the natural head of the family upon whom all power is vested.

All previous class-divided societies depended on patriarchal relations to sustain them.

Capitalism, mostly at its beginnings, relied on patriarchy very much to maintain and advance its general goals.

The conflict within capitalism between human rights--in the form of feminism--and patriarchy are due to the enormous social changes undergone since the industrialization of capitalism. This conflict has been so intense that it has forced most capitalist countries to institute laws to protect the rights of individual and groups of women against oppression or discrimination by husband, family, the state, etc.

BTW, Feminism isn't only about women's liberation. Feminism is about the liberation of women AND men.

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 21:54

Honestly, I don't see the aims of socialism and feminism as necessarily together.

I actually agree. There's a lot of flavors of feminism, and some of them don't mesh with the Marxist/Anarchist perspectives.

babies, bathwater, etc.

Some socialists are so headstrong that they'll ally with anyone and everyone they can to bring the current system down, not thinking about the future.

Errrr while that's true I don't know if anyone's ever avoided criticism of a liberal or radical feminist because they were a feminist. Like I said, there are a lot of different opinions and perspectives that fall under the umbrella of 'feminist' and no one has ever suggested that all of them are valid or true.

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 22:00

All previous class-divided societies depended on patriarchal relations to sustain them.

I'm still waiting for this explanation. Just because patriarchy and class conflict coexisted doesn't mean patriarchy caused class conflict.

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 22:01

I'm still waiting for this explanation. Just because patriarchy and class conflict coexisted doesn't mean patriarchy caused class conflict.

Nobody ever said this. I think this is one of those things that come from the rad-fem branch of feminism, but I think it is obviously wrong.

Ismail

26th June 2012, 22:06

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 22:07

Nobody ever said this. I think this is one of those things that come from the rad-fem branch of feminism, but I think it is obviously wrong.

Thank you!

A lot of the time, socialists seem to forget about fraternities which dedicate themselves to equality and humanism.

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 22:08

frats are for losers

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 22:11

No, I don't mean college frats. I mean real fraternities:

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

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 22:13

Yeah, I was joking but I still think I'm on the money with that comment, tbh.

Clubs for old rich white dudes to be old rich white dudes.

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 22:18

Fraternities don't care about how wealthy you are. They care that you're disciplined and happy with what you do in order to cooperate and achieve something.

Money means nothing if you have nothing to turn money into, and the best thing you can turn money into is memories with friends.

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 22:19

Nah fraternities are lame

EDIT: someone get this thread back on track quick

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 22:27

What's the problem?

(I'm reading Ismail's link right now.)

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 22:31

Here's a question: can patriarchy co-exist with socialism?

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 22:37

Yes. I don't think overthrowing capitalism will mean that sexism and racism will no longer be problems.

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 22:39

No, I mean, patriarchy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. I don't see why you couldn't have a patriarchal socialist society.

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 22:46

Right. I just said that. One can have a society that is in the process of establishing socialism and still be plagued with the mindest of the old guard.

Socialism, I think, just provides a setting where sexism and racism can be obliterated once and for all.

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 22:48

I'm saying a socialist society that embraces patriarchy, not one that still has "lingering sexism". I don't now how to make myself clearer.

Book O'Dead

26th June 2012, 22:49

I'm still waiting for this explanation. Just because patriarchy and class conflict coexisted doesn't mean patriarchy caused class conflict.

It could be argued that the first class antagonism in human society came about when agriculture was monopolized by men and women were relegated to the status of subject, non-property-holding person. In agricultural society, as in later societies, women became chattel.

Blame it on Eve.

That's why feminism is so important; it can help abolish the class struggle by showing us that the exploitation and oppression of women is the origin of the exploitation of "man by man".

In the story of creation in the book of 'Genesis' I think there is a mythological explanation for the fall of woman and the rise of man. Women perhaps were in more control of society in prehistoric times as they we closely associated with a goddess called Gaia, Pacha-mama and other less known prehistoric deities that represented womanhood, nature and, yes, MOTHER Earth. Could the apple offered by Eve be a metaphor for Nature's surrender to man? Maybe it means that women were the first ones to learn agriculture and taught it to men? Who knows...

BTW, In primitive agricultural societies fertility was a big thing!

But as people learned to better subjugate nature, men, who were physically stronger and were not subject to periodical bouts of menstruation, pregnancy, etc. that would keep them away from work, assumed greater control over the distribution of the arable land, the harvest, flocks and herds, etc., and began to invent or discover new gods that would give supernatural meaning to their success and control over the goddess of nature and their earthly representative: woman.

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 22:51

I'm saying a socialist society that embraces patriarchy, not one that still has "lingering sexism". I don't now how to make myself clearer.

Yeah, I know. It ain't like patriarchy or white supremacy or any other oppressive systems can't "linger", dogg.

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 22:52

Yeah, I know.

Okay, so, why is socialism mutually exclusive with patriarchy ideologically?

Book O'Dead

26th June 2012, 22:53

No, I mean, patriarchy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. I don't see why you couldn't have a patriarchal socialist society.

Patriarchy is not compatible with present-day capitalism, let alone socialism!

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 22:54

Okay, so, why is socialism mutually exclusive with patriarchy ideologically?

I have no idea what you mean.

EDIT: Oh.

Because patriarchy is an oppressive system. Socialism aims to end oppression and exploitation.

That doesn't mean patriarchy ends the minute the revolution comes.

Quail

26th June 2012, 22:54

No, I mean, patriarchy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. I don't see why you couldn't have a patriarchal socialist society.

You can't have a free and equal society that is also patriarchal for rather obvious reasons.

Book O'Dead

26th June 2012, 22:58

Okay, so, why is socialism mutually exclusive with patriarchy ideologically?

Because socialism is a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are socially owned and democratically run by the workers themselves.

Assuming that women outnumber men in any society, including a socialist one, they will likely vote out of existence any institution, law or regulation that would deprive them of their standing in society as equal partners.

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 22:59

You can't have a free and equal society that is also patriarchal for rather obvious reasons.

I don't think you can have a 100% free society. The mere existence of a society implies social conventions.

Here's another thought experiment: if it were possible to have only one sex for the human species and still propagate (i.e we'd be okay as a species) would this be better? That way we don't even need to have this discussion

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 23:00

Because socialism is a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are socially owned and democratically run by the workers themselves.

Assuming that women outnumber men in any society, including a socialist one, they will likely vote out of existence any institution, law or regulation that would deprive them of their standing in society as equal partners.

I'm not against legal equality for women, nor even cultural equality, but what I am saying is that you can still have romantic characteristics ascribed to both genders

Ismail

26th June 2012, 23:00

As noted, racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. will continue to exist amongst certain persons in the period of socialist construction. What differs from capitalism is that under socialism the objective conditions are developing towards an end to these outlooks and the material base which is used to justify them (disparities in wealth between ethnic groups, "they're taking our jobs" mantras, etc.) as a scientific world outlook does away with idealist and metaphysical outlooks, with religious bigotry, and so on.

By the time the world reaches communism I'm pretty sure any remnants of those societal problems will be practically extinguished.

Book O'Dead

26th June 2012, 23:02

I don't think you can have a 100% free society. The mere existence of a society implies social conventions.

Here's another thought experiment: if it were possible to have only one sex for the human species and still propagate (i.e we'd be okay as a species) would this be better? That way we don't even need to have this discussion

Read Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness". It's about a society on a planet called "Winter", where everyone is of the same sex. Really good book!

Eagle_Syr

26th June 2012, 23:03

Read Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness". It's about a society on a planet called "Winter", where everyone is of the same sex. Really good book!

I will have to check it out. So what is your opinion?

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 23:05

Here's a question: can patriarchy co-exist with socialism?

Well I would hope so! Are you telling me the men here can't be leaders?

Quail

26th June 2012, 23:09

I don't think you can have a 100% free society. The mere existence of a society implies social conventions.

Here's another thought experiment: if it were possible to have only one sex for the human species and still propagate (i.e we'd be okay as a species) would this be better? That way we don't even need to have this discussion

How about we just have all humans equal and free from cultural expectations based on abitrary characteristics they can't change?

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 23:10

I'm not against legal equality for women, nor even cultural equality, but what I am saying is that you can still have romantic characteristics ascribed to both genders

What do you mean and who said otherwise?

I don't think you can have a 100% free society. The mere existence of a society implies social conventions.

So? Social conventions, imo, doesn't necessarily entail oppression. And even if that was true, how is that an argument against fighting sexism or patriarchy?

Here's another thought experiment: if it were possible to have only one sex for the human species and still propagate (i.e we'd be okay as a species) would this be better? That way we don't even need to have this discussion

Let's just not make barriers for people no matter what their sex instead?

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 23:10

Well I would hope so! Are you telling me the men here can't be leaders?

haha oh wow

That isn't what getting rid of patriarchy means, dude.

Book O'Dead

26th June 2012, 23:10

I'm not against legal equality for women, nor even cultural equality, but what I am saying is that you can still have romantic characteristics ascribed to both genders

I don't know exactly what you mean by "romantic" but I can guess.

My personal circumstance is that I'm male, mostly heterosexual (about 75% queer and 25% Village People kinda-a-guy), intensely attracted to women who will let me wear their undies and have wild sex with me.

Okay, I admit, it: I'm a male chauvinist pig in women's underwear!

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 23:19

You could read Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State which discusses the forms of familial relations throughout history and their relation with the modes of production: http://marx2mao.com/M&E/OFPS84.html

After reading a third of that (sorry, I don't have more time right now), it seemed the real problems were polygamy and letting children choose their own spouses.

I'll read more tomorrow, but if there's a section after the first third you have in mind, go ahead and refer to it.

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 23:29

How about we just have all humans equal and free from cultural expectations based on abitrary characteristics they can't change?

I think this is what they call being an idealist.

There's a reason they call it historical materialism.

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 23:31

haha oh wow

That isn't what getting rid of patriarchy means, dude.

Sure, maybe for you. :D

After all, we can't expect every man to lead a pack. Some of them need a little help from mama bear.

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 23:33

Sure, maybe for you. :D

No, for anyone living in the 21st century.

I think this is what they call being an idealist.

There's a reason they call it historical materialism.

What was idealistic about what Quail said? You realize this is the goal of socialism, yes? To build a society that would allow such freedom.

It's like you're trying to be as wrong and condescending as possible at the same time.

Quail

26th June 2012, 23:34

I think this is what they call being an idealist.

There's a reason they call it historical materialism.

If it's idealistic to want a society where people aren't pushed into predetermined roles, socialised to live up to a set of bullshit ideals because of their gender then fuck it, yeah I'm an idealist.

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 23:37

If it's idealistic to want a society where people aren't pushed into predetermined roles, socialised to live up to a set of bullshit ideals because of their gender then fuck it, yeah I'm an idealist.

That's not very Marxist of you.

You're aware of Marx's interpretation of base and superstructure, right?

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 23:38

That's not very Marxist of you.

You're aware of Marx's interpretation of base and superstructure, right?

lol goddamn son

e: i don't understand how someone who's entire thread was a showcase of their own ignorance can then go on and try and condescend like this to anyone in the very same thread

baffling

Vorchev

26th June 2012, 23:43

No, for anyone living in the 21st century.

What was idealistic about what Quail said? You realize this is the goal of socialism, yes? To build a society that would allow such freedom.

It's like you're trying to be as wrong and condescending as possible at the same time.

No, socialism is about embracing your circumstances and doing what you must rather than falling for delusions of commodity fetishism.

"Freedom" is not really part of socialism's agenda. Liberation from capitalist oppression, yes, but you cannot liberate yourself from material nature.

#FF0000

26th June 2012, 23:47

No, socialism is about embracing your circumstances and doing what you must rather than falling for delusions of commodity fetishism.

Yo.

You legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

you keep saying commodity fetishism. and it doesn't mean what you think it means, dogg.

how embarrassing.

"Freedom" is not really part of socialism's agenda. Liberation from capitalist oppression, yes, but you cannot liberate yourself from material nature.

1) Sure is
2) Nothing anyone said has been a departure from materialism though. People have said "Yo women should have the same opportunities as men" and you said "LOL HOW UNMARXIST AND IDEALIST" for no discernible reason.

Eagle_Syr

28th June 2012, 04:05

Let's just not make barriers for people no matter what their sex instead? What's preventing women from being succesful?

And I think that idea is probably the best option: let's just have only one sex! We might as well if there is going to be no difference. Poof! No more conflict, not even potential conflict.

If it's idealistic to want a society where people aren't pushed into predetermined roles

Impossible, again, because by definition society implies social conventions and rules

#FF0000

28th June 2012, 04:42

What's preventing women from being succesful?

Women tend to get pushed into traditional "women's work" -- so called "pink collar" jobs which are generally lower paid compared to other jobs -- and even if they get into one of those "other jobs", they get paid less. There's also the fact that women as a whole spend more time doing unpaid caregiving, be it for children or for the elderly, than men. Then there's the costs of raising kids, which affects women far more than it affects men. And then there's pregnancy which can halt a woman's education or career in it's tracks.

And let's not forget violence towards women. It might seem like that's unrelated to one's economic situation, but women suffering from domestic violence often miss out on work because of the violence they suffer.

Oh, and the primary cause of homelessness among women in half of all major american cities? Domestic violence (http://www.usmayors.org/hungersurvey/2004/onlinereport/HungerAndHomelessnessReport2004.pdf).

So yeah, in a society where women don't get equal pay for equal work, where there isn't satisfactory child or elderly care, where sex education is lacking, access to contraceptives is hindered, and where domestic violence is so rampant and shelter so scarce -- there are plenty of barriers to women.

And I think that idea is probably the best option: let's just have only one sex! We might as well if there is going to be no difference. Poof! No more conflict, not even potential conflict.

Or, like was suggested, we don't treat people differently and dismantle these dumb barriers we have set up for people who happen to be born a certain sex. Why is this not a feasible option to you?

Impossible, again, because by definition society implies social conventions and rules

And? Social norms and mores don't have to be oppressive. Again, what you're saying doesn't mean we can't dismantle these useless gender roles and a social structure that puts up barriers for women (and men, sometimes).

Ostrinski

28th June 2012, 05:40

Since we have reached the point in societal development where patriarchy is only ideological, i.e. no longer has a material foundation, and we also understand that the development and flow of ideological trends is manipulated by the ruling class with hegemony over civil society, it so follows that socialist revolution will liberate women from this social condition that has only a weak, ideological basis, through the toppling of the class that is responsible for the prevalence of this grotesque ideology.

RedAtheist

28th June 2012, 09:22

Here's another thought experiment: if it were possible to have only one sex for the human species and still propagate (i.e we'd be okay as a species) would this be better? That way we don't even need to have this discussion

Yes

Don't you just love it when people expect you to be disgusted by idea and it happens to be one you fully embrace? Just to clarifying something though, I am not arguing for men to be killed, I am arguing that if seperate sexes had not existed in the first place that would be better. There is no social advantage to the division of people into male and female (there is a biological advantage which explains why the sexes evolved, but we are assuming for the sake of argument that there exists a species that can survive perfectly well with asexual reproduction.)

GiantMonkeyMan

28th June 2012, 13:31

No, socialism is about embracing your circumstances and doing what you must rather than falling for delusions of commodity fetishism.

"Freedom" is not really part of socialism's agenda. Liberation from capitalist oppression, yes, but you cannot liberate yourself from material nature.
I think you need to understand that your material situation is established and controlled by the ideological dominance of capitalism. In capitalism it is essential to establish a divided and competetive workforce along abstract concepts such as nationality, race, sexuality and gender. The only significant material division in capitalist society is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and it is the goal of socialists to destroy that division for the benefit of the latter.

Feminism and the abolisment of patriarchy are not about putting women in charge but about giving everyone in society an equal opportunity to obtain that position regardless of gender. Such opportunities are not possible in capitalist society where racism and sexism are institutionalised norms.

Eagle_Syr

28th June 2012, 18:45

Women tend to get pushed into traditional "women's work" -- so called "pink collar" jobs which are generally lower paid compared to other jobs -- and even if they get into one of those "other jobs", they get paid less. There are plenty of female CEO's, physicians, professors, et cetera

There's also the fact that women as a whole spend more time doing unpaid caregiving, be it for children I'm sorry, a mother has to be paid to raise her children?

And then there's pregnancy which can halt a woman's education or career in it's tracks.
Take it up with nature, buddy. I don't think we'll be changing that any time soon.

And let's not forget violence towards women. It might seem like that's unrelated to one's economic situation, but women suffering from domestic violence often miss out on work because of the violence they suffer.
That's abuse and assault and men responsible ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Or, like was suggested, we don't treat people differently and dismantle these dumb barriers we have set up for people who happen to be born a certain sex. Why is this not a feasible option to you?
That actually makes less sense than simplifying society by having one sex.

And? Social norms and mores don't have to be oppressive. Again, what you're saying doesn't mean we can't dismantle these useless gender roles and a social structure that puts up barriers for women (and men, sometimes).
I've stated multiple times that I don't support fixed or enforced gender roles, but I don't think you will change gender perceptions or the natural tendency of women to be mothers.

Halleluhwah

28th June 2012, 19:03

There are plenty of female CEO's, physicians, professors, et cetera

I can't post links, but I'm sure you can find more on the following from google:

"Though this year marks a new high for female CEOs, women still run just 3.6 percent of Fortune 500 companies. And one in 10 Fortune 500 corporations have no women on their boards, according to research by Catalyst, a non-profit organization that seeks to expand women's roles in the workplace."

I'm sorry, a mother has to be paid to raise her children?
If anybody here were interested in sustaining wage-slavery then sure. :rolleyes:

Take it up with nature, buddy. I don't think we'll be changing that any time soon. First of all, you never know what kinds of developments will be made in the future. Who knows, maybe someday men will be able to become pregnant. Secondly, the way we treat pregnant women and our society's child-rearing conventions are in no way dictated by nature.

That's abuse and assault and men responsible ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I doubt anybody disagrees, but simply punishing individual men does nothing to address the greater social problems that perpetuate misogyny, spousal abuse, rape, etc.

That actually makes less sense than simplifying society by having one sex. What the hell do you even mean here?

I've stated multiple times that I don't support fixed or enforced gender roles, but I don't think you will change gender perceptions or the natural tendency of women to be mothers. Why is there a "natural tendency of women to be mothers" any more than there is a natural tendency for men to become fathers? If all you are saying here is that a man cannot become a biological mother, cannot give birth at this time, then sure. :glare:

You are just so fucking determined to defend patriarchy in whatever way you can.

Eagle_Syr

28th June 2012, 19:11

I can't post links, but I'm sure you can find more on the following from google:

"Though this year marks a new high for female CEOs, women still run just 3.6 percent of Fortune 500 companies. And one in 10 Fortune 500 corporations have no women on their boards, according to research by Catalyst, a non-profit organization that seeks to expand women's roles in the workplace." That's not because they can't, it's because more men do. It's also why the overwhelming majority of surgeons are men: these careers tend not to attract many women.

First of all, you never know what kinds of developments will be made in the future. Who knows, maybe someday men will be able to become pregnant. No, thanks

Secondly, the way we treat pregnant women and our society's child-rearing conventions are in no way dictated by nature.
Pregnant women are treated with the utmost respect. People literally act as if they are walking on egg shells around them and try their hardest to accomodate them.

What the hell do you even mean here?
No men or women: just one sex.

You are just so fucking determined to defend patriarchy in whatever way you can.
I am, more than anything because you seem so determined to attack any and all traditions and cultural norms.

Halleluhwah

28th June 2012, 19:22

That's not because they can't, it's because more men do. It's also why the overwhelming majority of surgeons are men: these careers tend not to attract many women. And why do you think that is?

No, thanks I wasn't implying that you would be forced to give birth.

Pregnant women are treated with the utmost respect. People literally act as if they are walking on egg shells around them and try their hardest to accomodate them. You're only responding to the first part of my sentence (pregnancy, not child-rearing). I wouldn't equate 'walking on egg shells' with respect. Many pregnant women are expected to devote all of their energy to their pregnancy and to abstain from anything that could possibly be conceived as causing it harm, even where scientific evidence shows that it isn't necessarily harmful to the fetus (drinking a small amount of alcohol, for example). Women who don't sit still for hours every day listening to shitty new age music and rubbing their bellies can be seen as bad mothers before they even give birth to the fucking thing.

No men or women: just one sex. I got that. The part I didn't understand is WHY you think that breaking down barriers and critiquing gender roles makes no sense.

I am, more than anything because you seem so determined to attack any and all traditions and cultural norms. The fact that something is a norm or a tradition doesn't make it harmful, just as it doesn't make it somehow inherently good. Patriarchy is quite obviously a problem. It oppresses women as well as (to a lesser degree) binding men to certain roles, and it's closely tied to homophobia, transphobia, genderphobia, etc.

Vorchev

28th June 2012, 20:33

I think you need to understand that your material situation is established and controlled by the ideological dominance of capitalism. In capitalism it is essential to establish a divided and competetive workforce along abstract concepts such as nationality, race, sexuality and gender. The only significant material division in capitalist society is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and it is the goal of socialists to destroy that division for the benefit of the latter.

Feminism and the abolisment of patriarchy are not about putting women in charge but about giving everyone in society an equal opportunity to obtain that position regardless of gender. Such opportunities are not possible in capitalist society where racism and sexism are institutionalised norms.

You're giving capitalism too much credit. Every mode of production is materially established.

Agent Ducky

28th June 2012, 20:58

That's not because they can't, it's because more men do. It's also why the overwhelming majority of surgeons are men: these careers tend not to attract many women.

You don't think there's a reason why? Surgery (along with many medical/scientific career paths) is generally seen as a more "masculine" path. From a very young age women are brought up seeing it like that and when it comes time to choose their career path, they're often driven away from these paths because they were brought up learning that it wasn't their area. "Go be a nurse instead." ......

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 01:23

There are plenty of female CEO's, physicians, professors, et cetera

Except there aren't -- women are hella under-represented in leadership positions. And I wasn't even talking about female bosses. Shit, I thought avoiding the glass-ceiling shit would've made things easier for you but you run head-first into that brick wall anyway.

I'm sorry, a mother has to be paid to raise her children?No, I am saying that lack of child care or elderly care services impact women a disproportionate amount and these responsibilities which fall on women for no particular reason make life far more difficult for working class women.

Take it up with nature, buddy. I don't think we'll be changing that any time soon.
Or you could actually read my post and make contraception more readily available for women and have actual legitimate sex education instead of the religious nonsense that passes for it nowadays. That's the actual solution.

Did you even read my post, bro?

That's abuse and assault and men responsible ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Should. But that isn't what happens all the time. And it doesn't change the fact that domestic violence is still a monstrous problem for working class women.

That actually makes less sense than simplifying society by having one sex.Except that one is achievable and the other is, for now, science fiction.

I've stated multiple times that I don't support fixed or enforced gender roles, but I don't think you will change gender perceptions or the natural tendency of women to be mothers.1) Why not? Things have been changing for thousands of years? Why can't they change anymore?
2) There is no such "natural tendency". Plus, more dudes are staying home to care for kids anyway, so.

Vorchev

29th June 2012, 01:36

Your whole post reeks of sexism, FF0000. It's like you're saying men are guilty before proven innocent and therefore owe women to be shored up.

Each material man is not the same, and each material man does not cause the material circumstances of each material woman. Perhaps the reason patriarchy is admonished is because this is forgotten. It is possible to be a strong leader without being abusive.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 01:42

Your whole post reeks of sexism, FF0000. It's like you're saying men are guilty before proven innocent and therefore owe women to be shored up.

Nope.

Each material man is not the same, and each material man does not cause the material circumstances of each material woman.

I never suggested this.

Vorchev

29th June 2012, 01:49

I never suggested this.

Yes you did:

Except there aren't -- women are hella under-represented in leadership positions. And I wasn't even talking about female bosses. Shit, I thought avoiding the glass-ceiling shit would've made things easier for you but you run head-first into that brick wall anyway.

Can you tell me why leadership should be automatically equalized between men and women?

No, I am saying that lack of child care or elderly care services impact women a disproportionate amount and these responsibilities which fall on women for no particular reason make life far more difficult for working class women.

This is nonsense. Services should be provided on a material basis of relations of production. Why you're making this a "class" issue doesn't make sense. Children are not produced in class unless you're talking about polygamy, multiple births, or orgies.

Should. But that isn't what happens. Domestic violence is still a monstrous problem for working class women.

You're only focusing on working class women here because...?

Many women abuse their men because society expects men to man up, and men endure it because it doesn't want to deal with their humiliation.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 01:58

Can you tell me why leadership should be automatically equalized between men and women?

Never suggested that -- but I do think it's pretty strange how women are half of the population and yet seem to be worse off than men in general.

This is nonsense. Services should be provided on a material basis of relations of production. Why you're making this a "class" issue doesn't make sense. Children are not produced in class unless you're talking about polygamy, multiple births, or orgies.

that's some cool word salad, bro.

You're only focusing on working class women here because...?

Welp, because Eagle asked about what barriers women faced in society today, and I decided to talk about the barriers working class women in particular face, because you can go anywhere and hear all sorts of stuff about the glass ceiling and how women in management are mistreated and this and that.

Many women abuse their men because society expects men to man up, and men endure it because it doesn't want to deal with their humiliation.

Yup that's true -- and it's true because of patriarchal gender roles.

Vorchev

29th June 2012, 02:02

Never suggested that -- but I do think it's pretty strange how women are half of the population and yet seem to be worse off than men in general.

See? There you go believing men are guilty until proven innocent.

that's some cool word salad, bro.

Relations of production is Marxism 101......

Welp, because Eagle asked about what barriers women faced in society today, and I decided to talk about the barriers working class women in particular face, because you can go anywhere and hear all sorts of stuff about the glass ceiling and how women in management are mistreated and this and that.

Yes, and working class women suffer the barrier of "gravity" too, but you didn't mention that.

You should focus on issues that only working class women face if you believe there's a particular problem.

Yup that's true -- and it's true because of patriarchal gender roles.

Can you explain this?

Halleluhwah

29th June 2012, 02:08

FF0000 just isn't enough of a materialist to realize that 'patriarchy' is a bourgeois myth. A material analysis reveals that women are naturally suited only for being baby machines, as is proven by 'relations of production.' Feminists have failed to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell of commodity fetishism and so will never sublate hegemony. QED

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 02:08

See? There you go believing men are guilty until proven innocent.

Nope. This is your imagination. It isn't the fault of "men" just like how the problems of capitalism aren't the fault of "the rich", you know?

Relations of production is Marxism 101......

I understand marxism fine but what you said was absolutely unintelligible.

Yes, and working class women suffer the barrier of "gravity" too, but you didn't mention that.

Gravity isn't a social construct though, is it bro?

You should focus on issues that only working class women face if you believe there's a particular problem.

I do think working class women face problems that men don't have to deal with.

Can you explain this?

Men are supposed to be "strong" and women are supposed to be relatively weak and defenseless. Men are seen as dominant. Therefore being a man and suffering abuse from a woman is seen as humiliating because it is emasculating. That's bullshit because anyone can be abused.

Agent Ducky

29th June 2012, 02:10

See? There you go believing men are guilty until proven innocent.

How does what he said translate to that at all?
And he's saying that there's a lack of childcare services affects working-class women disproportionately. Because they are working class, they can't afford child-care like more affluent people could. And because of patriarchal gender roles, they are saddled with these duties more often than men for no particular reason except for society says so.
So lack of affordable childcare services affects working-class women disproportionately.
#FF0000 hasn't blamed men once in his arguments. Just patriarchal gender roles.

Vorchev

29th June 2012, 02:12

Nope. This is your imagination. It isn't the fault of "men" just like how the problems of capitalism aren't the fault of "the rich", you know?

No, I don't know. That's what this thread is about - questioning patriarchy's supposed relationship to capitalism.

Gravity isn't a social construct though, is it bro?

Domestic violence is?

I do think working class women face problems that men don't have to deal with.

OK. Can you describe some so we can talk about them?

Men are supposed to be "strong" and women are supposed to be relatively weak and defenseless. Men are seen as dominant. Therefore being a man and suffering abuse from a woman is seen as humiliating because it is emasculating. That's bullshit because anyone can be abused.

OK. This is something we can agree on.

I'm not sure how it's related to patriarchy though. Strength does not have to mean being brutish.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 02:16

No, I don't know. That's what this thread is about - questioning patriarchy's supposed relationship to capitalism.

I dunno if it's got any connection to capitalism in particular -- it's certainly tied with class society, though. Division of labor across gender lines was relatively rare before class society was a thing.

EDIT: I am pretty sure we established that on the very first page of the thread actually.

Domestic violence is?It certainly isn't a force of nature like gravity is? Are you seriously saying that gravity and domestic violence are in any way analogous? That domestic violence is as inevitable as what goes up coming back down?

OK. Can you describe some so we can talk about them?Scroll on up, boyo. I gave Eagle a list on the last page.

I'm not sure how it's related to patriarchy though. Strength does not have to mean being brutish.

Men are expected to be actors. Women -- to be acted upon. Patriarchal gender roles in a nut shell.

Crux

29th June 2012, 02:25

I would love to contribute constructively to this thread but Vorchevs every post makes me want to violently bash my head a against the wall. But please Vorchev, enlighten me, what do you think commodity fetishism (or marxism but that's a bigger issue) has to do with what you are trying to say here?

Vorchev

29th June 2012, 02:29

I dunno if it's got any connection to capitalism in particular -- it's certainly tied with class society, though. Division of labor across gender lines was relatively rare before class society was a thing.

EDIT: I am pretty sure we established that on the very first page of the thread actually.

I mentioned before that the arrival of class society seemed to come with polygamy and letting kids choose their spouses, not patriarchy.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/patriarchy-and-capitalism-t173032/index.html?p=2469806#post2469806

It certainly isn't a force of nature like gravity is? Are you seriously saying that gravity and domestic violence are in any way analogous? That domestic violence is as inevitable as what goes up coming back down?

I'm saying we call it domestic violence because that's where it happens. It doesn't emerge from the grand scheme of things. It's a dialectic materialist interaction between the people involved.

Sometimes, they argue about external problems, but those are problems the participants were generally involved with before specifically coming together.

Men are expected to be actors. Women -- to be acted upon. Patriarchal gender roles in a nut shell.

No... patriarchy is about making sound decisions. It's about looking at the big picture, being decisive, and being reliable for those you organize.

Acting without thinking is the path of a follower, not a leader.

Eagle_Syr

29th June 2012, 02:31

Except there aren't -- women are hella under-represented in leadership positions. Represented? Should we give out positions based on representation or merit? Not to suggest that merit is incredibly relevant in the capitalist system.

But their existence demonstrates my point, that women can be successful.

No, I am saying that lack of child care or elderly care services impact women a disproportionate amount and these responsibilities which fall on women for no particular reason make life far more difficult for working class women.

Okay. I agree there should be child care for working women. But even better, there should be extended maternity leave so new mothers and pregnant women don't have to worry about income at all (unless they want to work).

Or you could actually read my post and make contraception more readily available for women and have actual legitimate sex education instead of the religious nonsense that passes for it nowadays. That's the actual solution.
Won't find any protest from me on this one.

Except that one is achievable and the other is, for now, science fiction. It's more the thought that is important. So suppose it wasn't science fiction.

1) Why not? Things have been changing for thousands of years? Why can't they change anymore? They can. I am simply saying that not all change is good, and not all traditions are bad. Not all change is progress.

2) There is no such "natural tendency". Plus, more dudes are staying home to care for kids anyway, so.
Careful, you are going into Darwinian territory here. I'd say both men and women - people in general - have an inclination toward being nurturing.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 02:36

I mentioned before that the arrival of class society seemed to come with polygamy and letting kids choose their spouses, not patriarchy.

Uh, no. Patriarchy was a big part of it. Prior to class societies, human societies were generally pretty egalitarian with no set division of labor according to gender. Then this changed and male-dominated societies became the norm.

I'm saying we call it domestic violence because that's where it happens. It doesn't emerge from the grand scheme of things. It's a dialectic materialist interaction between the people involved. Sometimes, they argue about external problems, but those are problems the participants were generally involved with before specifically coming together.So you're saying domestic violence isn't a social problem but an individual problem between two particular people? I'd be inclined to agree if 1) it didn't affect women so much more than it does men and 2) if it wasn't the primary cause of homelessness among women in half of all major American cities.

No... patriarchy is about making sound decisions. It's about looking at the big picture, being decisive, and being reliable for those you organize.

Acting without thinking is the path of a follower, not a leader.Hahaha oh gosh.

No. Patriarchy is a social system in which men have an inordinate amount of power and in which women are subordinate.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 02:43

Represented? Should we give out positions based on representation or merit? Not to suggest that merit is incredibly relevant in the capitalist system.

I never said this. Please read what I said again.

But their existence demonstrates my point, that women can be successful.

Nah their existence doesn't demonstrate your point. Women make up half of the population and actually completely destroy men when it comes to math and science in school -- and yet they are extremely few women in leadership positions. Relatively few scientists, doctors, etc. etc. etc. Of course, yeah, individual choice has something to do with it, but even then, why are these fields so extremely male-dominated? Some disparity is one thing, sure, but what we've got now isn't covered by saying "oh women just don't want to do these things".

Okay. I agree there should be child care for working women. But even better, there should be extended maternity leave so new mothers and pregnant women don't have to worry about income at all (unless they want to work).Dudes should get maternity leave too, imo. And those "Koala Kare" things in men's restrooms.

Won't find any protest from me on this one.
Neato.

They can. I am simply saying that not all change is good, and not all traditions are bad. Not all change is progress.What isn't progressive about challenging unfair and limiting gender roles though?

Careful, you are going into Darwinian territory here. I'd say both men and women - people in general - have an inclination toward being nurturing.I don't really see what was remotely darwinian about what I said. I actually agree with you here.

Vorchev

29th June 2012, 02:50

Uh, no. Patriarchy was a big part of it. Prior to class societies, human societies were generally pretty egalitarian with no set division of labor according to gender. Then this changed and male-dominated societies became the norm.

If you want to prove this, go for it.

Until then, it sounds like dogma. My reading of Engels didn't present this.

So you're saying domestic violence isn't a social problem but an individual problem between two particular people? I'd be inclined to agree if 1) it didn't affect women so much more than it does men and 2) if it wasn't the primary cause of homelessness among women in half of all major American cities.

Again, you need evidence for empirical claims.

You're also categorizing all men together.

It might be easier if you analyze where domestic violence comes from instead of speculating.

Hahaha oh gosh.

No. Patriarchy is a social system in which men have an inordinate amount of power and in which women are subordinate.

This doesn't help you distinguish between male leaders and male followers.

It also doesn't help you explain how men structure power over women.

I'm not sure what good that perception of patriarchy does you.

GiantMonkeyMan

29th June 2012, 02:51

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 02:58

If you want to prove this, go for it.

Until then, it sounds like dogma. My reading of Engels didn't present this.

No dude it's actual, like, basic history, dude.

Again, you need evidence for empirical claims.I did, a page ago.

You're also categorizing all men together.
No, I haven't said anything about men.

This doesn't help you distinguish between male leaders and male followers.

It also doesn't help you explain how men structure power over women.

I'm not sure what good that perception of patriarchy does you.what

i'm gonna be honest it's pretty hard to respond to your posts dude. They are usually on the edge of being complete non sequiturs most of the time.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 03:00

real quick am I the only one having trouble understanding Vorchev half of the time or what (could just be me -- i've been feeling pretty sick and hella dizzy today)

Vorchev

29th June 2012, 03:04

Vorchev, Eagle_syr; you might find this particularly interesting and relevant - http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed-evelyn/1971/biology-destiny.htm

"It is obvious that females are biologically different from males in that only the female sex possesses the organs and functions of maternity. But it is not true that nature is responsible for the oppression of women; such degradation is exclusively the result of manmade institutions and laws in class-divided patriarchal society. It did not exist in primitive classless society and it does not exist in the animal world." - Evelyn Reed

I'm surprised that guy's a Marxist. Denying the value of biology is completely non-materialist.

In any case, I'm not thinking in terms of women being baby-factories (although their maternity is part of why they're cherished), and I agree that there are exceptions to the rule. Material leadership is not defined solely by sex. My point is patriarchy shouldn't be shunned in itself because emphatic male leadership can be compassionate.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 03:06

I'm surprised that guy's a Marxist. Denying the value of biology is completely non-materialist.

Nah biological essentialism is bullshit, son.

In any case, I'm not thinking in terms of women being baby-factories (although their maternity is part of why they're cherished), and I agree that there are exceptions to the rule. Material leadership is not defined solely by sex. My point is patriarchy shouldn't be shunned in itself because emphatic male leadership can be compassionate.

Capitalism shouldn't be shunned because bosses can be nice sometimes.

Eagle_Syr

29th June 2012, 03:06

I never said this. Please read what I said again. You are suggesting that it is inherently problematic that fewer women have leadership positions than men, as if we ought to aim at proportional distribution. This is the same nonsense argument put forth by supporters of affirmative action.

Nah their existence doesn't demonstrate your point. Women make up half of the population and actually completely destroy men when it comes to math and science in school -- and yet they are extremely few women in leadership positions. Relatively few scientists, doctors, etc. etc. etc. Of course, yeah, individual choice has something to do with it, but even then, why are these fields so extremely male-dominated? Some disparity is one thing, sure, but what we've got now isn't covered by saying "oh women just don't want to do these things"
Nobody is prohibiting women from pursuing these careers. Indeed, many institutions actually give women an advantage in admissions.

Dudes should get maternity leave too, imo. Dudes don't give birth, so their bodies don't need the time to rest and recuperate.

What isn't progressive about challenging unfair and limiting gender roles though? Nothing. Let's put it another way: if the world was matriarchal, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

I don't really see what was remotely Darwinian about what I said. I actually agree with you here.
It explains the origin of the maternal instinct.

Halleluhwah

29th June 2012, 03:06

real quick am I the only one having trouble understanding Vorchev half of the time or what (could just be me -- i've been feeling pretty sick and hella dizzy today)
You're not the only one, because nothing he says makes any sense at all. Honestly, I can't even tell if he's pretending not to be a misogynist.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 03:08

You're not the only one, because nothing he says makes any sense at all. Honestly, I can't even tell if he's pretending not to be a misogynist.

damn son and you are a "hipster philosophy major" and probably deal with big dumb post-modern word salad all day.

Vorchev

29th June 2012, 03:16

No dude it's actual, like, basic history, dude.

Engel's history talked about how polygamy was used by men to gather women like property, and how Protestantism excused parents from choosing their children's spouses such that the bourgeoisie hung out and picked among themselves.

You seem to be imagining things as if it's just obvious that caveman whacked women over the head with a club, and hauled them into the cave.

No, I haven't said anything about men.

If women are supposedly afflicted more by domestic violence than men, who do you suggest is doing it?

what

i'm gonna be honest it's pretty hard to respond to your posts dude. They are usually on the edge of being complete non sequiturs most of the time.

You need to realize that patriarchy has style, not just power.

Brute power does not remain for very long unless you have a family and isolate it from society such that it can't run away.

That's not leadership anyway. It's just oppression.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 03:17

You are suggesting that it is inherently problematic that fewer women have leadership positions than men, as if we ought to aim at proportional distribution. This is the same nonsense argument put forth by supporters of affirmative action.

Affirmative action's not bad. Main problem is that it help rich motherfuckers before it helps broke motherfuckers.

But moving on, yeah it's kind of problematic that women make up 50% of the population and are so disproportionately broke and less secure when compared to men.

Nobody is prohibiting women from pursuing these careers.
Not really (http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf) (I can find all sorts of things like this too, dude! There are plenty!)

. Indeed, many institutions actually give women an advantage in admissions yeah and that can only do so much. the fact that affirmative action is necessary in the first place should sort of be a red flag that things are kinda fucked up.

Dudes don't give birth, so their bodies don't need the time to rest and recuperate. Men can take care of kids, though.

Nothing. Let's put it another way: if the world was Matriarchal, I wouldn't have any problem with it.Well that's stupid. Why wouldn't you prefer it to be, I don't know, egalitarian?

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 03:22

Engel's history talked about how polygamy was used by men to gather women like property, and how Protestantism excused parents from choosing their children's spouses such that the bourgeoisie hung out and picked among themselves.

Nah I'm talking about history in general dude. Here. Go look up "patriarchy" on wikipedia and read the "History" section. That is a good start for you.

You seem to be imagining things as if it's just obvious that caveman whacked women over the head with a club, and hauled them into the cave.

Nah we're just talking about completely different things. I'm talking about history, and you're talking about what Engel's said specifically, for some reason.

If women are supposedly afflicted more by domestic violence than men, who do you suggest is doing it?

Men, in the vast majority of cases. But I in no way implied that it was the fault of men in general.

That's not leadership anyway. It's just oppression.

Patriarchy is a system of oppression, though.

You are using a word in a way that literally nobody else does, btw.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 03:24

(hey i have some comic books to read. i seriously implore you to perhaps drop all pretenses y'all have on the subject and go do some reading. I know the somethingawful forum has a p. baller intro to feminism that goes over what feminists think generally.)

Halleluhwah

29th June 2012, 03:25

If eagle_syr thinks it isn't even a little "problematic" that women and people of color are disproportionately excluded from positions of power, then I really don't see how this discussion is going to lead anywhere. He's a determined sexist and apparently also racist.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 03:27

yo and don't take that the wrong way, eagle_syr. you should probably sit down and do some serious thinking over this because, man, i can't change your mind. you are set in your ways and your false conclusions derived from bad premises.

Eagle_Syr

29th June 2012, 04:23

Affirmative action's not bad. It's racism. How is that not bad?

But moving on, yeah it's kind of problematic that women make up 50% of the population and are so disproportionately broke and less secure when compared to men.
In a society where positions ought to depend on merit, why would it even be important the proportion of men to women in a certain field?

Not really

Nothing is legally preventing women from pursuing these careers, and abolishing some gender identity doesn't mean you have to abolish all of it

Men can take care of kids, though.
They can, but what's the point of having both parents at home? I guess I don't see a problem with temporary paternity leave for new fathers, though.

Well that's stupid. Why wouldn't you prefer it to be, I don't know, egalitarian?
It is. Different doesn't have to mean unequal.

If eagle_syr thinks it isn't even a little "problematic" that women and people of color are disproportionately excluded from positions of power, then I really don't see how this discussion is going to lead anywhere. He's a determined sexist and apparently also racist.
You are making wild accusations. I said I don't see why proportions should matter if we are aiming for appointments based on merit and not what color one is born or what genitalia one has dangling between the legs (or not, in the case of women).

Hiring based on sex or color is discrimination. Sorry. By definition.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 04:45

It's racism. How is that not bad?

Nope. It's a ragged attempt to rectify the damage caused by institutional racism and racist cultural attitudes.

In a society where positions ought to depend on merit, why would it even be important the proportion of men to women in a certain field?

It is important because there is no good reason for women to be so underrepresented in the sciences (in going with our example) when so many women clearly have the aptitude. Does individual choice play a role? Certainly, but if women make up half the population, and if women are just as capable as men are in this field (they are, by all accounts), then the ratio of women to men in the field of science should be somewhere about equal, right?

But they are not.

And you didn't even read that link I posted either, did you?

Nothing is legally preventing women from pursuing these careers,

De facto sexism is just as bad and just as obstructive and oppressive as de jure sexism.

and abolishing some gender identity doesn't mean you have to abolish all of it

What of it should be kept and why

They can, but what's the point of having both parents at home?

hahaha the idea that maybe the guy could take care of the kid while the mother went to work didn't even cross your mind, did it?

It is. Different doesn't have to mean unequal.

No, society is not egalitarian right now. Women make less than men in the same fields, are herded into pink-collar, lower paid work, and suffer in particular from inadequate sex education, lack of access to contraceptives, lack of any sort of child or elderly care, and so on and so on and so on.

Society is not egalitarian.

You are making wild accusations. I said I don't see why proportions should matter if we are aiming for appointments based on merit and not what color one is born or what genitalia one has dangling between the legs (or not, in the case of women).

Hey, uh, you don't see anything wrong with a society that is half male and half female, and made up of a mix of different ethnic groups and all that being run exclusively by old white men?

No problem there whatsoever?

Hiring based on sex or color is discrimination. Sorry. By definition.

Affirmative action also takes income into account. Poor white kids get in places thanks to AA all the time.

It's also taking into account that, uh, women and "people of color" are still in a disadvantaged position when compared to white people.

Eagle_Syr

29th June 2012, 04:54

Nope. It's a ragged attempt to rectify the damage caused by institutional racism and racist cultural attitudes. History happened. Affirmative action today serves no purpose other than to tell people that they are entitled to something or not because of the actions of their ancestors.

We could go all the way back to Babylonian times talking about oppression and inequality. It doesn't help nowadays to continually bring up race, whether discriminating for or against someone.

It is important because there is no good reason for women to be so underrepresented in the sciences (in going with our example) when so many women clearly have the aptitude. Does individual choice play a role? Certainly, but if women make up half the population, and if women are just as capable as men are in this field (they are, by all accounts), then the ratio of women to men in the field of science should be somewhere about equal, right?
The only solution to your problem is to force women to become engineers and doctors, then.

And you didn't even read that link I posted either, did you?

I did. It was incredibly long, but I skimmed through it.

hahaha the idea that maybe the guy could take care of the kid while the mother went to work didn't even cross your mind, did it?

I doubt many women wouldn't want to spend time with their newborns. Not to mention relax after the ordeal of childbirth.

If they want to, go for it. I wouldn't abandon the kid that fast though.

Society is not egalitarian.

I'm not talking about society as it is, but as it might be.

Hey, uh, you don't see anything wrong with a society that is half male and half female, and made up of a mix of different ethnic groups and all that being run exclusively by old white men?
I do right now because the system is exclusive. But in some future communist world, if it just so happened that statistics said that women or men or black or white did something more often, it's not inherently problematic.

Affirmative action also takes income into account. Poor white kids get in places thanks to AA all the time.
Income isn't the same as race. Low income people actually struggle growing up. Being black isn't a struggle in itself.

Halleluhwah

29th June 2012, 05:05

This really isn't that complicated. If the number of men and the number of women in a society is close to equal, there is no reason that women would be significantly and consistently underrepresented in positions of power. However, they are.

This implies that there is an underlying reason for women and people of color to be underrepresented.

Now, you can either take this as a sign that having ovaries or dark skin makes a person naturally inferior, in which case you are a racist and misogynistic scumbag, OR you can understand that there is an underlying social cause for this difference which should be fixed.

Do you follow?

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 05:10

History happened.

And it's still happening. The problems of the past don't just go away, especially when they're barely of the past to begin with.

Affirmative action today serves no purpose other than to tell people that they are entitled to something or not because of the actions of their ancestors.Nah, it actually serves

We could go all the way back to Babylonian times talking about oppression and inequality. It doesn't help nowadays to continually bring up race, whether discriminating for or against someone.Mmm, no I think breaking the cycle of poverty that exists here and now today does plenty to help. Of course that's where I have my criticism of affirmative action -- you won't see many poor black kids or poor girls getting as much help from it as you will middle-class or rich black kids and girls.

The only solution to your problem is to force women to become engineers and doctors, then.No, it is to remove the barriers that exist that are herding them towards pink-collar work. Please, if you're going to engage in discussion, then engage in discussion. Address my points directly, read the links I'm posting, and give them some consideration.

Tell me, is it possible to change your mind? Are you completely set in this? If so, then let me know so I know to end this discussion here and go read more comics.

I did. It was incredibly long, but I skimmed through it.Okay. And then what? Did you consider what it had to say, at all? Did it do anything to plant any sort of doubt in you? Because it doesn't seem that way.

I doubt many women wouldn't want to spend time with their newborns. Not to mention relax after the ordeal of childbirth.
More and more fathers want to be stay-at-home dads, so uh.

If they want to, go for it. I wouldn't abandon the kid that fast though.Mother going to work after a child is born = abandoning the kid

Father going to work after a child is born = a-okay.

hmmmmm

I do right now because the system is exclusive. But in some future communist world, if it just so happened that statistics said that women or men or black or white did something more often, it's not inherently problematic. Kinda would be because "leaders" and "communist society" don't really mesh.

Income isn't the same as race. Low income people actually struggle growing up. Being black isn't a struggle in itself.dude what hahaha. I was poor and white growing up. I went to school and lived in the same neighborhoods as people who were poor and black.

I never knew what it was like to be stopped by a police officer until I was 20 and had expired tags on my car. The black kids I went to school with knew what it was like in middle school.

Get outta here, dogg. Do I have to start providing more stats here or are you gonna save me the time and you some face, and look it up yourself?

EDIT: holy shit dogg you are living in a country where black people are sentenced to harsher penalties when compared to white people who commit the same crime, who are executed more often than white people for the same crimes, who are disproportionately poorer, who struggle in particular in finding employment, in securing access to healthy food and so on and so on.

And lets not forget that American schools, today, are more segregated than they were at any point in the 20th century, with black students getting the brokest schools with the fewest resources.

good lord son it is like you just dropped a land-mine of embarrassment just so you could face plant right on top of it.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 05:11

This really isn't that complicated. If the number of men and the number of women in a society is close to equal, there is no reason that women would be significantly and consistently underrepresented in positions of power. However, they are.

This implies that there is an underlying reason for women and people of color to be underrepresented.

Now, you can either take this as a sign that having ovaries or dark skin makes a person naturally inferior, in which case you are a racist and misogynistic scumbag, OR you can understand that there is an underlying social cause for this difference which should be fixed.

Do you follow?

Read this again and again and again and again please please please please

Eagle_Syr

29th June 2012, 05:18

This really isn't that complicated. If the number of men and the number of women in a society is close to equal, there is no reason that women would be significantly and consistently underrepresented in positions of power. However, they are. This is explained by culture.

Now, you can either take this as a sign that having ovaries or dark skin makes a person naturally inferior, in which case you are a racist and misogynistic scumbag, OR you can understand that there is an underlying social cause for this difference which should be fixed.

How will you know when it is fixed? When there are exactly as many men as women in a position? Or even "almost"?

I mean this is all arbitrary.

What about Olympic runners, who are predominantly black?

And it's still happening. The problems of the past don't just go away, especially when they're barely of the past to begin with. But how is the white kid who was denied a spot at a college in favor of the black kid responsible for any of that?

Tell me, is it possible to change your mind? Are you completely set in this? If so, then let me know so I know to end this discussion here and go read more comics.
Change my mind about what? That I like the idea of husband and wife and a traditional family?

You won't change my mind about that. The best you can do is have your social revolution and not prohibit family traditionalists like me from living the way we want.

More and more fathers want to be stay-at-home dads
Good for them.

Mother going to work after a child is born = abandoning the kid Let them work. I guarantee you most wouldn't want to so quickly, given the benefit of comprehensive maternity leave.

Father going to work after a child is born = a-okay.
The father didn't spend 9 intimate months and give birth.

I never knew what it was like to be stopped by a police officer until I was 20 and had expired tags on my car. The black kids I went to school with knew what it was like in middle school.

I rather meant comparing poor white kids to upper-middle class black kids, not poor black kids. Obviously there is a clear disadvantage there. But who is at more of a disadvantage in the poor white kid vs rich black kid category?

bcbm

29th June 2012, 05:19

god what the fuck is wrong with this forum where do these people come from

The father didn't spend 9 intimate months and give birth.

apparently your 'family traditionalism' extends to the idea of the dad just sitting around getting drunk for nine months instead of being an involved and supportive parent with a substantial time and emotional investment in the pregnancy and subsequent child that might merit having some time off work too and, you know, giving the woman who just spent nine intimate months and gave birth a break from having to care for the little fucker all the time

Eagle_Syr

29th June 2012, 05:21

god what the fuck is wrong with this forum where do these people come from

Sorry I don't agree 100% with your views?:confused:

Well, actually, I'm not

Ostrinski

29th June 2012, 05:21

I was thinking the same exact thing.^ (edit: @ bcbm) How the hell do we get so many supposed leftists with such reactionary views

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 05:28

This is explained by culture.

Yup. Sexist patriarchal culture, guy.

But how is the white kid who was denied a spot at a college in favor of the black kid responsible for any of that?

Haha I'm going to guess that in 100% of these cases that the white kid has a lot more prospects to fall back on than the black applicant. And even so, you do realize that white kids benefit from AA too, right?

Change my mind about what? That I like the idea of husband and wife and a traditional family?

You won't change my mind about that. The best you can do is have your social revolution and not prohibit family traditionalists like me from living the way we want.

I'm talking about changing your mind about the barriers that exist that keep women from going into certain fields.

I rather meant comparing poor white kids to upper-middle class black kids, not poor black kids. Obviously there is a clear disadvantage there. But who is at more of a disadvantage in the poor white kid vs rich black kid category?

yeah it's not like cops don't specifically stop young black dudes who look like they have a little money.

Yeah dude being black comes with a whole set of bullshit that white people don't have to deal with.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 05:28

I was thinking the same exact thing.^ (edit: @ bcbm) How the hell do we get so many supposed leftists with such reactionary views

I blame Command and Conquer Red Alert, personally.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 05:30

The worst thing isn't even anyone's opinions here, I don't think.

It's that I sort of figured there is a point where people will be like "oh wow looks like I don't know shit about what I'm talking about let me read up some and get back to you" which I think any reasonable person would have passed by now but nope here we are

bcbm

29th June 2012, 05:31

Sorry I don't agree 100% with your views?:confused:

Well, actually, I'm not

disagreement is fine i am just amazed by the number of reactionaries that pop up here. also i edited my post to respond to your bit about fathers not needing time off

Eagle_Syr

29th June 2012, 05:31

Yup. Sexist patriarchal culture Okay. I don't fully agree but I'll concede a little bit here.

Haha I'm going to guess that in 100% of these cases that the white kid has a lot more prospects to fall back on than the black applicant Irrelevant. The issue is justice.

I'm talking about changing your mind about the barriers that exist that keep women from going into certain fields. The problem is the barriers you present are cultural and therefore hard to agree upon. I'd be right with you if you pointed to a law that said women can't do x. But your argument is about culture, which is not as concrete.

Yeah dude being black comes with a whole set of bullshit that white people don't have to deal with.

I doubt it's as bad as being poor though.

Halleluhwah

29th June 2012, 05:37

Okay. I don't fully agree but I'll concede a little bit here.

Irrelevant. The issue is justice.

The problem is the barriers you present are cultural and therefore hard to agree upon. I'd be right with you if you pointed to a law that said women can't do x. But your argument is about culture, which is not as concrete.

Please reread this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2471200&postcount=95). Of course these barriers are cultural: that's what everybody else has been saying this entire time. The barriers can manifest in a lot of ways, some subjective or psychological, some objective and possibly statistical.

I doubt it's as bad as being poor though.
This isn't an argument, and it's just plain infantile.

Eagle_Syr

29th June 2012, 05:40

Please reread this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2471200&postcount=95). Of course these barriers are cultural: that's what everybody else has been saying this entire time. The barriers can manifest in a lot of ways, some subjective or psychological, some objective and possibly statistical. Then we run into questions about "ought to" and the human condition, which we evidently don't agree on.

This isn't an argument, and it's just plain infantile.

It is an argument. Affirmative action is unjust.

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 05:40

Irrelevant. The issue is justice.

Oh it's funny because I agree -- I think the way things are is completely unjust, and that working class people of all races and genders ought to have the same access to education as rich white people have. So I'm a-okay with affirmative action. Justice!

The problem is the barriers you present are cultural and therefore hard to agree upon. I'd be right with you if you pointed to a law that said women can't do x. But your argument is about culture, which is not as concrete.

Yeah but people do a pretty good job of pointing out the attitudes and norms and bias and negative effects of seemingly gender/racial neutral laws and norms and policies. The idea is to be hella critical.

I doubt it's as bad as being poor though.

Man.

Gotta say.

I was quite happy being poor and white rather than black and a little more comfortable, in all seriousness.

Crux

29th June 2012, 13:21

Vorchev: I was going to make a long argument showing this but you know it's easier just saying it: You're a guy who haven't the first clue what "patriarchy", "Feminism", "marxism", "dialectical materialism" and "commodity fetischism" means. How do I know this? It is very obvious from the way you (mis)use all of them. If we are going to have to run through the very basics, fine we were all clueless at one point, but do that in learning. Start with the absolutly simplest questions. Because watching you mangle marxist terminology like you do in some kind of absurd attempt to justify what is most most likely misogyny is just painful. Unless you are of course just plain trolling, in which case keep it up.

electrostal

29th June 2012, 13:52

I was quite happy being poor and white rather than black and a little more comfortable, in all seriousness.
Do you know what it feels like to be Black and comfortable?

Tim Finnegan

29th June 2012, 14:06

Capitalism is the totality of social reproduction, the mediation of social relations by capital. Patriarchy is a dimension of social reproduction, the refinement of commodity-mediated relations by gender. Patriarchy is therefore a dimension of capitalism.

There have been pre-capitalist patriarchies, and capitalist patriarchy obviously exists in continuity with them, but patriarchy as we experience it today is wholly capitalistic. It could not be anything else.

To oppose capitalism without opposing patriarchy, then, is to oppose capitalism incompletely, to oppose certain aspects of capitalism while remaining indifferent to others. If that's how you think, you may as well become a social democrat- or perhaps I should say, you may as well admit it.

electrostal

29th June 2012, 14:40

Tim Finnegan

29th June 2012, 15:15

Aye, it's well professor-sounding, in't it?

#FF0000

29th June 2012, 15:52

Do you know what it feels like to be Black and comfortable?

Nope but I know black kids with more money than me who've been expelled from my school for being on the receiving end of a punch.

Eagle_Syr

30th June 2012, 01:14

Oh it's funny because I agree -- I think the way things are is completely unjust, and that working class people of all races and genders ought to have the same access to education as rich white people have. So I'm a-okay with affirmative action. Justice! But preferring them because of their race or gender is nothing other than unfair to everybody else.

Yeah but people do a pretty good job of pointing out the attitudes and norms and bias and negative effects of seemingly gender/racial neutral laws and norms and policies. The idea is to be hella critical.
Agreed.

I was quite happy being poor and white rather than black and a little more comfortable, in all seriousness.
Maybe in the 1950's, but nowadays no way in hell does an upper-middle class black person have a harder life than a dirt poor white person. Income has very real ramifications on living quality, moreso than color of skin, especially in this country.