"There are two forms of feminism, with a division of how attractive a woman is."

[Sasha]

"There are two forms of feminism, and it actually has to do with a division of how attractive a woman is." (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/29/there-are-two-forms-of-feminism-and-it-actually-has-to-do-with-a-division-of-how-attractive-a-woman-is)

Posted by David Schmader (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/david-schmader/Author?oid=245) on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Finally! Two guys—Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner, both of 'em conservative radio hosts—explain feminism.
The gist of their discussion, as reported by the invaluable RightWingWatch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/conservative-radio-hosts-parse-feminists-some-are-cute-some-are-ugly-all-are-family-destroyi):

There are “two forms of feminism,” Buehner argued. There are “cute” feminists like Sarah Palin who will find jobs in the “marketplace” and “get themselves a husband” but will “never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.” Then, there are the “ugly” feminists whose “lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace.” These “attractively challenged” feminists will only find careers in academia and in government agencies, for instance, “you can run the EPA.”
What all these feminists have in common, Swanson argues, is that “all of them want to be free from the family” and together with “the homosexuals” are “destroying society.” Buehner speculates that in the future, feminism will be remembered as “a time in which women lost the love of their children” and “decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.”
Enjoy!



jeQAe55qY9w

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Just when I thought I'd seen everything...

[Sasha]

anyone taking names for the "after the revolution" list?

[Yuppie Grinder]

threw up

[feeLtheLove]

Do people actually believe this guy?

[Regicollis]

I can't decide whether to weep or whether to laugh...

[DancingEmma]

Wow. These two sound like a pair of real intellectuals. Somebody give these friendly fellas a Fulbright Scholarship so they can further pursue this incisive sociological thesis.

[La Guaneña]

These guys should get a nobel peace prize or something...

[Art Vandelay]

Its 2013, how are views like this still present.

[Conscript]

Its 2013, how are views like this still present.

Who knows but it sure is embarassing. Seems like everyone outside the US thinks we're particularly reactionary and chauvinist.

[Rafiq]

The destruction of the family should be undoubtedly aimed at, my proof? The reactionaries tremble today at the thought of it, no relavent force, from the homosexual movement to the feminist movement, has called for the destruction of the family. The mere impression, the mere grain that is a possibility of the family's destruction as an intention horrifies them. We project a terror without even knowing it. So let them tremble. To our fortune, let them die in fear. It is through these small behavioral tendencies that we can be assured of a potential resurrection of our movement.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The destruction of the family should be undoubtedly aimed at, my proof? The reactionaries tremble today at the thought of it, no relavent force, from the homosexual movement to the feminist movement, has called for the destruction of the family. The mere impression, the mere grain that is a possibility of the family's destruction as an intention horrifies them. We project a terror without even knowing it. So let them tremble. To our fortune, let them die in fear. It is through these small behavioral tendencies that we can be assured of a potential resurrection of our movement.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, what should we replace it with?

[Lobotomy]

no relavent force, from the homosexual movement to the feminist movement, has called for the destruction of the family.

Could the destruction of the typical nuclear family unit be a natural consequence of the abolishment of gender, though?

Edit: I'm not speaking to wether the destruction of the family would necessarily be a good or bad thing though.

[RedAtheist]

There's just so many things wrong with this article I don't know where to begin

1. Thanks for admitting that private employers are shallow assholes who will only hire women who conform to a certain set of genetically determined traits. I don't wanna hear these jerks argue later on that capitalism is a fair system

2. These people obviously hate the idea of an intelligent women, given the way they dismiss any women who is an academic as too "ugly" to get a job in the marketplace. As if no women could possibly prefer working as an academic to working in the marketplace.

3. Sarah Palin is not a feminist by any definition of the word and she certainly does not want to escape from the family or dominate her husband. When she appears on TV she never stops talking about her goddamn family and how proud she it to be a mother.

4. Not all women have children. These conservatives can't seem to comprehend the idea of an adult women who does not have babies.

5. The tradition family is an oppressive institution which trains people to conform to hierarchical structures. The women submits to her husband, thus giving the children the impression that harmonious relationships between adults are based on inequalities of power. Then there's the fact that the children in turn are supposed to blindly submit to their parents and the father beats them when they don't.

If anything, opposing the family structure (not just escaping from it as an individual but opposing it as society's model for raising children) is one of the best things a person can do for the children of the world. It encourages society to come up with new ways of raising children which don't train them to reproduce oppressive social relations.


The destruction of the family should be undoubtedly aimed at, my proof? The reactionaries tremble today at the thought of it, no relavent force, from the homosexual movement to the feminist movement, has called for the destruction of the family. The mere impression, the mere grain that is a possibility of the family's destruction as an intention horrifies them. We project a terror without even knowing it. So let them tremble. To our fortune, let them die in fear. It is through these small behavioral tendencies that we can be assured of a potential resurrection of our movement.

I agree, not even socialist parties are putting forward the idea of abolishing the family. Though I don't think we can prove that something is bad just by showing that reactionaries support it. Instead I would use the reasons I explained above to argue that the family is oppressive.

[Lobotomy]

3. Sarah Palin is not a feminist by any definition of the word and she certainly does not want to escape from the family or dominate her husband. When she appears on TV she never stops talking about her goddamn family and how proud she it to be a mother.
.

Well, the mere fact that she is even willing to run for office does make her a bourgeois feminist, because she is perpetuating the idea that women should be in positions of political power. she does maintain a very maternal image though.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why are so many of you against the family...? :(

[Sea]

There are “cute” feminists like Sarah Palincome on yo

at least limit your wrongness to once per sentence

[Ostrinski]

anyone taking names for the "after the revolution" list?I'll donate my belts for the purposes of tightening them around these fuckers' necks when we get the chance, I'll say that.

[Questionable]

Well hey, they're right after all. Capitalism does force certain social groups into particular branches of the division of labor based on subjective differences. But it just gives us another reason to seek the abolition of the system.

[Ostrinski]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, what should we replace it with?What makes you think we are in any position to make decisions on something as organic and something as socially and systematically relative as the issue of how households are organized?

[DancingEmma]

Well hey, they're right after all. Capitalism does force certain social groups into particular branches of the division of labor based on subjective differences. But it just gives us another reason to seek the abolition of the system.

Not sure if this was supposed to be a joke, but no. It's true that less conventionally attractive women do get discriminated against in employment. But all the same, there are plenty of "ugly" women in the so-called marketplace (where most of the jobs are undesirable anyway) and plenty of "attractive" women in academia and in government agencies (where jobs generally are more secure and have better pay and benefits than in the marketplace besides). These two men are in no way right about anything.

[Questionable]

Not sure if this was supposed to be a joke, but no. It's true that less conventionally attractive women do get discriminated against in employment. But all the same, there are plenty of "ugly" women in the so-called marketplace (where most of the jobs are undesirable anyway) and plenty of "attractive" women in academia and in government agencies (where jobs generally are more secure and have better pay and benefits than in the marketplace besides). These two men are in no way right about anything.

Calm down, you totally misunderstood what I was saying.


It's true that less conventionally attractive women do get discriminated against in employment.

Then I'm right. And the statistics show that "attractive" people do indeed have an easier time in economic matters (Job interviews, promotions, getting loans, etc) as well as in their private lives.

It doesn't mean I approve, obviously. It just means capitalism is discriminatory (Big shocker, I know).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why are so many of you against the family...? :(

We're not against families in general. You see, when fuckheads like Rush Limbaugh rail against some straw-man of leftism, accusing the left of wanting to destroy families, what they are actually communicating is the fact that they are feeling threatened by families that do not conform to their right-wing authoritarian expectations - such people think that a family should be composed of a father, a mother and 2.4 children, and that families composed of anything else shouldn't be considered "real" families, even though they very much are.

You must keep in mind that conservative-style blather about families is in fact a smokescreen for their own heterosexist expectations.

[DancingEmma]

Calm down, you totally misunderstood what I was saying.

Actually, I'm feeling completely calm right now, but um, OK.


Then I'm right. And the statistics show that "attractive" people do indeed have an easier time in economic matters (Job interviews, promotions, getting loans, etc) as well as in their private lives. It doesn't mean I approve, obviously. It just means capitalism is discriminatory (Big shocker, I know).

Yes, you are right that "attractive" people have an easier time with things, economically and otherwise. I was just clarifying that those two talk show hosts were still not "right" and were actually incorrect about what they were specifically saying, as I explained.

[Tenka]

It never ceases to amaze me the length at which right-wingers can babble about things of which they have no knowledge whatever. "Third-Stream Feminism"? "The goal is abortion"? (wanna bet these clowns made indignant posts on that abortionplex in an article of The Onion?)

As for the fate of the family post-revolution: There will be no fathers nor mothers but everyone will have an Uncle Joe!
(No I'm not serious gawd)

[Ostrinski]

Actually, I'm feeling completely calm right now, but um, OK.



Yes, you are right that "attractive" people have an easier time with things, economically and otherwise. I was just clarifying that those two talk show hosts were still not "right" and were actually incorrect about what they were specifically saying, as I explained.In fairness I think that his acknowledgement that they were "right" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and ironic.

[Questionable]

Actually, I'm feeling completely calm right now, but um, OK.

Your "You must be joking, right?" remark implied that you were somewhat irate about what I said. If I misinterpreted that, then nevermind.


Yes, you are right that "attractive" people have an easier time with things, economically and otherwise. I was just clarifying that those two talk show hosts were still not "right" and were actually incorrect about what they were specifically saying, as I explained.

I have to confess I don't really know what we're arguing about here. Yeah, they were wrong that the marketplace is supposedly better than public jobs, and they were wrong that every single attractive and non-attractive woman ends up exactly in each of these areas, but as far as saying the capitalism on average forces certain social groups into certain areas, they were right, it's just that they view this as acceptable and us communists do not.

I'm not trying to support them, I just found it ironic that in their right-wing rant they accidentally revealed one of the main criticisms of capitalism.

And yes, Ostrinksi is right when he says I was being tongue-in-cheek. It's the same way I might say "Well, Glenn Beck is right, we do want to kill all bourgeois sympathizers when the revolution happens!"

[Leftsolidarity]

Why are so many of you against the family...? :(

Because the bourgeois family structure is oppressive and exploitive and really doesn't make a lot of sense. Have you read the communist manifesto? (not an asshole rhetorical question but a serious one because it is briefly covered in there)

[DancingEmma]

Your "You must be joking, right?" remark implied that you were somewhat irate about what I said. If I misinterpreted that, then nevermind.

I have to confess I don't really know what we're arguing about here. Yeah, they were wrong that the marketplace is supposedly better than public jobs, and they were wrong that every single attractive and non-attractive woman ends up exactly in each of these areas, but as far as saying the capitalism on average forces certain social groups into certain areas, they were right, it's just that they view this as acceptable and us communists do not.

I'm not trying to support them, I just found it ironic that in their right-wing rant they accidentally revealed one of the main criticisms of capitalism.

And yes, Ostrinksi is right when he says I was being tongue-in-cheek. It's the same way I might say "Well, Glenn Beck is right, we do want to kill all bourgeois sympathizers when the revolution happens!"

Alright. I hear you. And yes--come to think it--that was an astute observation on your part and there is some irony there. The talk show hosts seem to think the idea that "uglier" women could get stuck with worse jobs is appropriate in some way, that it's some sort of reflection on their true worth, that it serves them right. And, in fact, it IS true, as you correctly pointed out, that "ugly" women often do get stuck with worse jobs. But far from being appropriate, it's actually highly unjust, and it wouldn't happen in an egalitarian society. Funny, isn't it, how even the biggest fools can accidentally hint at truths like this?

By the way, I wasn't really even trying to argue with you or get on your case or anything; I was just aiming for clarity. Thanks for your contribution here.

[Questionable]

By the way, I wasn't really even trying to argue with you or get on your case or anything; I was just aiming for clarity. Thanks for your contribution here.

It was all just a big misunderstanding. I have an awful habit of seeing hostility where there is none.

[Rafiq]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, what should we replace it with?

The goal of the real existing movement is to abolish the present state of things, not create blueprints for a future society. As Marxists, our understanding of human social relations enables us to recognize the class nature of constructs like the 'nuclear family'. The nuclear family did not come into place because someone had a better idea of how the family unit should function, it developed organically as a reflection of changes in the forces of production. Destroy the basis of the bourgeois family, destroy what sustains it's existence and it will crumble.


Could the destruction of the typical nuclear family unit be a natural consequence of the abolishment of gender, though?

Edit: I'm not speaking to wether the destruction of the family would necessarily be a good or bad thing though.

The abolishment of gender is not a choice, it is not a decision simply made on a state level, it is not even a goal which is to be strived for. It is a logical result of the destruction of capitalist social relations, with the imposition of a proletarian dictatorship. Gender has existed since the beginnings of class society, and thus, only with the destruction of class society (made possible only now) will gender be done away with. It is more useful to recognize the origins and the nature of things like the family and gender than to talk of what will happen afterwards, or even how they will be done away with.



agree, not even socialist parties are putting forward the idea of abolishing the family. Though I don't think we can prove that something is bad just by showing that reactionaries support it. Instead I would use the reasons I explained above to argue that the family is oppressive.

The family is not to be opposed simply because it is "oppressive" but because it is another medium of bourgeois dictatorship. The bourgeois family, in essence, sustains in a way the process of capital accumulation (the process that is the capitalist mode of production).


Why are so many of you against the family...? :(

This begs an even more interesting question: Why do we find supposed Communists react so sensitively to an opposition to the bourgeois family? Perhaps because the bourgeois ideological pre-supposions of said person have not been done away with, and that their communism is nothing short of superficial.

[Leftsolidarity]

This begs an even more interesting question: Why do we find supposed Communists react so sensitively to an opposition to the bourgeois family? Perhaps because the bourgeois ideological pre-supposions of said person have not been done away with, and that their communism is nothing short of superficial.

So because they haven't learned or developed as much as you they aren't actually a communist? Get off your high horse. The question around the family has always been a difficult one and entails a lot of discussion and learning to really develop a good understanding.

[Rafiq]

So because they haven't learned or developed as much as you they aren't actually a communist? Get off your high horse. The question around the family has always been a difficult one and entails a lot of discussion and learning to really develop a good understanding.

Make no mistake, no one here has ever been able to become a communist over night, no one has been able to do away with the remnants of bourgeois ideology so quickly. I apologize if my post came off as condescending or even offensive. It's important for users to recognize their intellectual state, to understand the magnitude of how much (bourgeois) ideology shapes their positions and so on, in order to do away with them.