Identity

[Karl Renegade]

As a someone who identifies with the left politically,do i really have to support feminism and gay rights? I'm quite socially conservative.

[ellipsis]

To be a member of this site you do. Unless you want to be restricted to opposing ideologies.

[Brutus]

Equality for all! Except women and gays.
I don't see it catching on...

[Quail]

Feminism and gay rights are IMO an essential part of leftist politics. It's not "freedom" if only straight males are free.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I second those points. It seems rather odd to me for someone to identify with the Left while repudiating many of the actual positions associated with it. What attracts you to left wing politics if not the struggle against oppression?

[Rafiq]

Indeed, that is strange. Why would someone with reactionary ideological convictions (even by bourgeois-liberal standards) "identify" with the left politically? Perhaps you don't. Perhaps you're actually just a reactionary conservative who opposes "fat cat bankers" and "greedy corporations", "wild west decadence" and so on. Though I'm just slinging shit here.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, you do.

You cannot disconnect the struggle for working class emancipation from the emancipation of oppressed peoples from their social condition under capitalism. Why? Because it's elementarily inconsistent on the one hand to pay lip service to the destruction of all exploitative economic distinctions and then on the other hand spit on the struggle of all the social classifications that sustain a unique form of oppression as a direct result of those very economic relationships.

I mean for fuck's sake.

[Rafiq]

Yes, you do.

You cannot disconnect the struggle for working class emancipation from the emancipation of oppressed peoples from their social condition under capitalism. Why? Because it's elementarily inconsistent on the one hand to pay lip service to the destruction of all exploitative economic distinctions and then on the other hand spit on the struggle of all the social classifications that sustain a unique form of oppression as a direct result of those very economic relationships.

I mean for fuck's sake.

Indeed, but ultimately this opposition to gay rights and feminism is nothing short of an unconscious and immediate defense of the bourgeois family structure. As you said, you cannot identify with the emancipation of the proletariat while being so adamant, so keen in expressing your defense of the bourgeois family structure, one of the most effective means of their dictatorship.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Well, yeah you do. To be considered a communist you have to be in favor of equality for all. Homophobia, chauvinism, etc. have no place in revolutionary politics, and create division within the ranks of the working class.

[l'Enfermé]

Tell us more about how gays should have no rights because they don't like straight sex or why women should remain second-class citizens cause they were born without testicles.

[feeLtheLove]

Is this guy serious or just trolling?

[ellipsis]

A mod who isn't on tapatalk should restrict this guy.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Social-conservative?
So you are against women and gays having the same rights, but at least you do it socially!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Politically-liberal but socially-conservative?


That makes even less sense than the opposite saying.

[Red Banana]

The Worker has no nation, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation; only a relationship to the means of production.

Communists support the liberation of workers, all workers.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Okay, let's give this comrade a tiny bit of slack and educate him before we call for his head. According to Lenin, the party of communism must act as a "tribune of the people" particularly defending the oppressed (e.g., gays, women). It is indeed a very basic contradiction to be a revolutionary leftist and to be against gay and women's liberation (which in my opinion can only fully be realized through socialist revolution).

There have been unsavory elements on the left that have not done so over the years. Many Stalinist tendencies have taken anti-gay positions including paying tribute to the nuclear family, that instrument of conformity and oppression. But not all Stalinists take such positions. Hopefully your social views will catch up with your economic positions real soon.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Perhaps you're actually just a reactionary conservative who opposes "fat cat bankers" and "greedy corporations", "wild west decadence" and so on. Though I'm just slinging shit here.
I suspect this is the case.


As a someone who identifies with the left politically,do i really have to support feminism and gay rights? I'm quite socially conservative.
well, there is always national bolshevism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_bolshevism)

[Manic Impressive]

You should stop seeing them as women or homosexuals and start seeing them as fellow workers. Workers who are equal to you. If you chose to look down on these people or deny them their rights, don't be surprised if all other workers look down on you and deny you your rights as result.

[#FF0000]

As a someone who identifies with the left politically,do i really have to support feminism and gay rights? I'm quite socially conservative.

To be in any way consistent, yeah I'd say so. Our aim is to abolish class society and by extension that would mean doing away with oppression, or whatever you want to call it, on the basis of gender, sexual identity, etc.

[#FF0000]

I think a lot of the posts in this thread could be more helpful -- no one should really be going on about restrictions, whether it be non-mods doing the backseat modding thing or mods calling for another mod to restrict or whatever.

[The Idler]

I support equality for all and am against discrimination, but I don't believe in feminism which pushes patriarchy theory or a legalistic liberal rights-theory to defend LGBT workers.

[Sam_b]

To be honest guys, I'm not really comfortable with people referring to LBGT people as 'the gays' or 'gays', it's a really loaded term.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I support equality for all and am against discrimination, but I don't believe in feminism which pushes patriarchy theory or a legalistic liberal rights-theory to defend LGBT workers.
Yes, I am glad you said this. I realize that when I read the OP I read "feminism" as the "liberation of women." So, I agree, feminism, as a liberal ideology is counter-posed to Marxism.

[Crabbensmasher]

To me, it seems like this guy has more Nationalist or Populist sympathies.
To the author, I would suggest looking up the "True Finns" political party in Finland. They hold similar views. Also, some would argue many populist politicians of South America subscribe(d) to the same view (Huge Chavez, who is deeply religious, Evo Morales, the Workers Party in Brazil, perhaps even Juan Peron)

[#FF0000]

kinda weird whenever someone says something like this people are like "MAYBE YOU SHOULD CHECK OUT THIS RACIST NATIONALIST PARTY INSTEAD"

[Flying Purple People Eater]

To me, it seems like this guy has more Nationalist or Populist sympathies.
To the author, I would suggest looking up the "True Finns" political party in Finland. They hold similar views. Also, some would argue many populist politicians of South America subscribe(d) to the same view (Huge Chavez, who is deeply religious, Evo Morales, the Workers Party in Brazil, perhaps even Juan Peron)

What.



The.



Fuck.

[Karl Renegade]

I'm anti-capitalist.

Why do you assume I automatically hate women and gays? Isn't that a little intolerant? I just have a preference for the traditional family.

I seem to have offended a lot of people. sorry for that. some comments aren't very nice. I thought being left-wing was about equality. What about an equal chance to express an opinion? I DO NOT HATE WOMEN AND GAYS. I am aware of the contradiction in myself and I wanted to know other people's opinion about it and that's why I asked the question. My view:I consider myself very tolerant towards these two groups, if tolerance means respecting them and being civilized and so is today's society at least in the West but it seems to me present day feminism and LGBT movement is quite aggressive and scary. What does this mean for a straight man like myself? I don't hate anyone. I'm just skeptical that's all.

[Quail]

Left-wing politics are about equality, which is why it's so important to support women's and LGBT liberation. As I said above, if people are to be truly liberated, that means liberation for everyone, not just straight men.

Now, you call feminism "scary" - what exactly is that scares you? The goal of feminism is equality for people regardless of gender (or sexual orientation, since a lot of homophobia stems from patriarchal values and gender roles), so when we demand equal rights, we're not trying to take away any of your rights or flip things over so that men are oppressed. We want to do away with the gender roles that limit both women and men. It's more obvious that patriarchy is bad for women because we're paid less, expected to be carers and child-rearers as well as workers, we're not taken as seriously as men, we're expected to be weak, obedient, we're "frigid" if we don't have sex, "whores" if we do, etc., but if you look at the flipside - men are expected to fit into the "masculine" role. If you can't provide for your family, if you dare to show emotion or weakness you're seen as a failure. If you want to stay at home with your kids, you can't because women are expected to do that. I suggest you have a deeper look into feminism and think about how the traditional gender roles actually limit you as a man, and empathise with the women in your life and how they're limited under patriarchy. Perhaps then, feminism won't seem so scary.

Also, please don't post shitty one-liners. This is the learning forum, and people come to Revleft who haven't fully developed their political views. We should try to be helpful as we can.

[Sam_b]

What does this mean for a straight man like myself?

You didn't need to say it, we all knew.

You're also posting a strawman argument in the sense we all have to apparently be 'tolerant' of intolerance, which of course is a ridiculous assertion, as if I have to tolerate people who mistrust or resent me because of my sexuality. You don't get an equal chance to present opinions where positions you advocate (and this is overtly or covertly, intentional or otherwise) is one which helps alienate and silence the LGBTQ community. You "prefer the traditional family?" Since when have the choices of me or others on here had anything to do with you? Why do you want a say in what relationship or family I have?

We're not looking for your 'tolerance', we're looking for people to fight alongside.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why do you assume I automatically hate women and gays? Isn't that a little intolerant? I just have a preference for the traditional family.Because you admit you are against gays having rights and the movement that gave women rights. What do you expect us to assume from such a statement?


I thought being left-wing was about equality. What about an equal chance to express an opinion?It is, however, your opinion is anti-equality, thus not left-wing, and this forum is for left-wing ideas, unless it's in Opposing Ideologies.


but it seems to me present day feminism and LGBT movement is quite aggressive and scary. What does this mean for a straight man like myself? I don't hate anyone. I'm just skeptical that's all.You sound exactly like Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, etc. who believe the gays are a threat to society; that their movement is something more than LGBT rights. The only way you can honestly believe the LGBT movement is scary and threatening is that you have some homophobia inside of you.

[#FF0000]

I just have a preference for the traditional family.

A change in the mode of production means that the "traditional family" is going to change along with it. What I think you might be referring to as the traditional family (the nuclear family?) is actually a relatively recent development and is unique to the capitalist mode of production.


What does this mean for a straight man like myself? I don't hate anyone. I'm just skeptical that's all.

That gay people will be able to get married and women will be treated better, probably. What are you worried about, specifically?

And please don't go on with the whole "tolerance means not being mad when someone says a thing" -- it's kind of a cop-out. That being said I think you're trying to discuss in good faith here and would really like for you to sort of elucidate your positions here -- what worries you about feminism/the lgbt movement, what you mean when you say you "support the traditional family", etc. etc. etc.

And to everyone else, I want to echo what Quail said: this is the learning forum. I gotta ask why we'd even bother having it if we're just going to toss out members who ask questions and bring out their reservations about parts of the "movement". I think a lot of folks here should remember the dumb shit they believed when they first drifted to left-ish thought and be a little more helpful.

[Beeth]

People must realize that a person could be politically 'leftist' while at the same time being socially conservative. They may believe in leftist principles with respect to the economy (such as common ownership etc.) but they may still hold socially conservative views. There is no rule that one automatically becomes socially progressive the moment one understands/questions the capitalist system of production. So it is better not to attack people who ask questions in this regard.

Second, self-interest plays a role and people normally look out for their community or whatever group they identify with. A straight worker is therefore going to be concerned about his life, his rights, his specific circumstances, rather than about the rights of other groups. If a straight person finds himself overworked, underpaid, exhausted, demeaned by poverty and illness, he is going to ask of leftists, "What's in it for me?" He is not going to say, "I am miserable, overworked, underpaid, no healthcare, can't send my children to college, so let me support LGBT groups." That would make little sense. His ideas/activism will reflect his goals, needs, and specific situations. Putting a gun to his head and forcing him to care about other groups seems rather illogical.

So the point is, People are driven by self-interest and not by altruistic motives. They will care about themselves and their community, and thereby extend that attitude to other communities. Or they may not. Either way, you cannot force it upon them in the name of doctrinal purity.

[#FF0000]

People must realize that a person could be politically 'leftist' while at the same time being socially conservative. They may believe in leftist principles with respect to the economy (such as common ownership etc.) but they may still hold socially conservative views

Sure, but those two sets of views are diametrically opposed. One can't support a shift from the capitalist mode of production if they want to see the social status quo maintained. If one wants to see an end to the class system, then they're going to see an end to all of its vestiges in the family, in concept of race, etc.


If a straight person finds himself overworked, underpaid, exhausted, demeaned by poverty and illness, he is going to ask of leftists, "What's in it for me?" He is not going to say, "I am miserable, overworked, underpaid, no healthcare, can't send my children to college, so let me support LGBT groups." That would make little sense. His ideas/activism will reflect his goals, needs, and specific situations.

On one hand I agree on that we gotta appeal to workers everywhere and deal with their specific circumstances but on the other I'm a straight, white, underpaid worker and I am still somehow able to dredge up enough mental capacity to be concerned about issues that affect other people in my life as well as my own issues.


Putting a gun to his head and forcing him to care about other groups seems rather illogical.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's doing that, nor is the issue someone 'not caring' about these issues (I know a lot of people who hardly talk about social issues at all). Being opposed to the liberation of women, ethnic minorities, etc. is a problem.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I support equality for all and am against discrimination, but I don't believe in feminism which pushes patriarchy theory or a legalistic liberal rights-theory to defend LGBT workers.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you do realize that patriarchy is a fundamental component of Marxism since Engel's On The Origin of Priviate Property, The Family, and The State, and that Marxist Feminism and Proletarian Feminism are real things right?

[o well this is ok I guess]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you do realize that patriarchy is a fundamental component of Marxism since Engel's On The Origin of Priviate Property, The Family, and The State, and that Marxist Feminism and Proletarian Feminism are real things right? Wasn't there a thread a while back on how Marx was sort of sexist sometimes?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sure, but those two sets of views are diametrically opposed. One can't support a shift from the capitalist mode of production if they want to see the social status quo maintained. If one wants to see an end to the class system, then they're going to see an end to all of its vestiges in the family, in concept of race, etc.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the abolition of capitalist relations would entail a total end to old prejudices. Capitalism hasn't erased all prejudices stemming from feudal periods and before, and to think that things will be especially different the next time around is historically exceptionalist, and smacks of the notion that communism will be Heaven on Earth, when in fact it will be no such thing.

[#FF0000]

I think it's a mistake to assume that the abolition of capitalist relations would entail a total end to old prejudices. Capitalism hasn't erased all prejudices stemming from feudal periods and before, and to think that things will be especially different the next time around is historically exceptionalist, and smacks of the notion that communism will be Heaven on Earth, when in fact it will be no such thing.

Yeah, but capitalism was another class system.

But yeah I don't think the end of the revolution is gonna mean a sudden abrupt end to racism and sexism and all that. I'm just saying a truly classless society means an end to these things too.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Yeah, but capitalism was another class system.

But yeah I don't think the end of the revolution is gonna mean a sudden abrupt end to racism and sexism and all that. I'm just saying a truly classless society means an end to these things too. I dunno the french revolution had a lot of people who all of a sudden realized that slavery was fucked up.
I mean the abolition of slavery in France didn't last long but it's the thought that counts, right?
Er what i'm trying to say is that extenuating circumstances can result in certain changes of heart.

[Karl Renegade]

Not to make excuses but coming from a predominantly,conservatively catholic asian country, it's not easy to be as progressive-minded as the others in this forum about those issues even if I consider myself one of the more secular and progressive people in my country. I'm not sure if the original socialism of the 19th century which is what I understand leftism is generally, were even about things like gender! As a man, I don't think it's fair being portrayed by feminist/LGBT movement and supporters as an oppressor all the time. I've never made a conscious decision to be an oppressor of women/homosexuals. What exactly do they want? What do they expect of men? How much of these "rights" are we supposed to give them(not even sure if men should be the ones to give it to them since I'm not even sure we were the ones that took it from them) without it becoming a case of reverse discrimination? As for homosexuals and their cause of gay marriage, how can I be expected to be accepting of that if I find it difficult to accept homosexuality to begin with? Why don't I accept homosexuality? not because I find it immoral but because I just find it unnatural. Most people here are just being sarcastic and unhelpful and that's why I'm not posting any more about this topic. I still consider myself a leftist despite what anyone says.

[newdayrising]

The Brazilian workers party is not "social-conservative" in the sense this guy put it. it's a regular bourgeois historically leftist party that's at least vocally progressive on such issues. The fact that catholic militants were important in the party doesn't change this, they were left wing people linked with liberation theology that basically said nothing significant about what Americans call "social issues".

Which has nothing to do with me endorsing the workers party in any way whatsoever. I'm just correcting a mistake. They're no more conservative on women's or gay issues than you would expect from a governing party that claims to be a part of the "democratic left".


To me, it seems like this guy has more Nationalist or Populist sympathies.
To the author, I would suggest looking up the "True Finns" political party in Finland. They hold similar views. Also, some would argue many populist politicians of South America subscribe(d) to the same view (Huge Chavez, who is deeply religious, Evo Morales, the Workers Party in Brazil, perhaps even Juan Peron)

[#FF0000]

Not to make excuses but coming from a predominantly,conservatively catholic asian country, it's not easy to be as progressive-minded as the others in this forum about those issues even if I consider myself one of the more secular and progressive people in my country.

Yep, we're all here to learn.


I'm not sure if the original socialism of the 19th century which is what I understand leftism is generally, were even about things like gender!Marxists have dealt with gender since Marx and Engels, actually. See: The Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State.


As a man, I don't think it's fair being portrayed by feminist/LGBT movement and supporters as an oppressor all the time.The feminist and LGBT movements don't, in large part, portray men as an oppressor.


What exactly do they want?Depends on the group. There are many, many different strains of feminism. In the broadest sense possible, they want an end to sexist, patriarchal social relationships, gender roles, and systematic male domination of society.


What do they expect of men?I'm not sure what you mean.


How much of these "rights" are we supposed to give them(not even sure if men should be the ones to give it to them since I'm not even sure we were the ones that took it from them) without it becoming a case of reverse discrimination? I'm not really sure how fighting for gender equality/liberation could become a case of "reverse discrimination". What, specifically, are you worried about?

Also, I think it's strange, though, that you ask "what do they want/what do they expect of men" while it seems like you're sure that they're against you. If you honestly don't know, then why not avoid coming to any conclusions until you've investigated?


As for homosexuals and their cause of gay marriage, how can I be expected to be accepting of that if I find it difficult to accept homosexuality to begin with? The first step would, I suppose, be realizing that there is no reason to take issue with what goes on between consenting adults.


Why don't I accept homosexuality? not because I find it immoral but because I just find it unnatural.First off, homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of species of animals (more animals engage in homosexual activity than engage in sex for pleasure). Secondly, something being "natural" does not mean it is good nor bad. Cancer and bubonic plague are natural. Eyeglasses and synthetic polymers are not.


I still consider myself a leftist despite what anyone says. What does that mean to you? Do you want to see an end to class society?

[Fourth Internationalist]

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/women-s-rights/violence-against-women/violence-against-women-information

[Button]

As a someone who identifies with the left politically,do i really have to support feminism and gay rights? I'm quite socially conservative.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.

--B. Bragg.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Why don't I accept homosexuality? not because I find it immoral but because I just find it unnatural.

Then you aren't a leftist. What you 'think' about it doesn't matter. Not only are you wrong about homosexuality being unnatural (what the fuck is 'unnatural'!?), as the act of homosexuality has been expressed freely for most of human history, as has been the case with other mammals. It's only been until recently that any prude's had a problem with two lovers of the same gender coming together.

If you wish to take away the rights of these people because your 500 year-old Christian fabricative bullshit dictates that they are dirty to you, then you only really care about bigoted social control.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Not to make excuses but coming from a predominantly,conservatively catholic asian country, it's not easy to be as progressive-minded as the others in this forum about those issues even if I consider myself one of the more secular and progressive people in my country. I'm not sure if the original socialism of the 19th century which is what I understand leftism is generally, were even about things like gender! As a man, I don't think it's fair being portrayed by feminist/LGBT movement and supporters as an oppressor all the time. I've never made a conscious decision to be an oppressor of women/homosexuals. What exactly do they want? What do they expect of men? How much of these "rights" are we supposed to give them(not even sure if men should be the ones to give it to them since I'm not even sure we were the ones that took it from them) without it becoming a case of reverse discrimination? As for homosexuals and their cause of gay marriage, how can I be expected to be accepting of that if I find it difficult to accept homosexuality to begin with? Why don't I accept homosexuality? not because I find it immoral but because I just find it unnatural. Most people here are just being sarcastic and unhelpful and that's why I'm not posting any more about this topic. I still consider myself a leftist despite what anyone says.
Comrade Karl, as this is in the LEARNING part of Revleft, I am trying to cut you some slack. Being a Marxist means that you are in favor of human liberation. Equal rights for men and women. Freedom from persecution for one's sexual tastes, as long as the activities are consensual. BTW, I consider marriage -- a contract approved by god and the state -- to be, at best, an unnecessary institution, and at worst, an instrument of oppression for women and gays. Under the current framework in the US and other capitalist countries, naturally I support the right of people to marry whomever they choose.

You need to shed the backward prejudices that you were raised with. You have, as you report, probably already come a long way -- that's great. If you have a personal distaste for homosexual activity, that is your business. If you oppose the rights of gays to fully participate in society and be free from persecution because of their sexual preferences -- you are taking an anti-Marxist position.

I want to underscore that most people that call themselves "Feminists" are pro-capitalist. The most important distinction is class.

[Geiseric]

Karl Renegade, you have to understand that sexism is a tool that the bourgeois uses to divide the proletariat, the same way as racism is. Your bigotry is allowed by, and supported by the state because it and capitalism as a whole benefits.

However you nor the catholic church have any right, by man nor god, to judge anybody else. There is no lamb above god, and we're all god's children, that's what Jesus taught, why don't you take it literally. The church is a man made thing, and its dogma is subject to politics. The pope is voted in ffs, how does that work? I mean he's voted in to speak for god, by the rest of the church? Sorry if this seems insulting, i'm from a catholic family, and I never understood it. I've read the bible, and there's nothing about the inquisition in it.

[Sam_b]

As for homosexuals and their cause of gay marriage, how can I be expected to be accepting of that if I find it difficult to accept homosexuality to begin with? Why don't I accept homosexuality? not because I find it immoral but because I just find it unnatural.

Karl, it is not simply to do with gay marriage, as if somehow we were all fine before that came up.

Save me the sob story about how you find it so, so hard to accept that people like myself and others on this forum are real fucking human beings. You try for a minute to think about some of the shit people go through every day - the victimisation, the bullying, the people who look down on you because it's 'unnatural' and the risk that these same people will often smack you one. Stop trying to make it out like things are fine and dandy because you don't have a moral problem.

You are unsure how it is somehow your problem? Mate you are the problem. You've disenfranchised us precisely by singling us out as the 'unnatural' ones, that are different from you because of the partners we have. You built this wall and seemingly have no interest in tearing it down.

To you, we are 'them'. That says a lot.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I guess this is piling on -- but I want to clarify a point without being moralistic. Homosexuality is a fact. It exists everywhere. No one gives a shit whether you "accept it" or not. It's not about your personal tastes. Quite a few people are disgusted by heterosexual sex -- that's their business too. This is about a revolutionary's attitude toward people's rights to express themselves sexually without the state interfering. And about people being granted equal rights and opportunity under the law in all spheres. Your immersion in a culture where homosexuality is considered abhorrent did a number on your thinking. You can overcome this. You have overcome many other prejudices instilled in you, I gather, so it is possible.

And don't get too offended by the comrades indignation (not appropriate in LEARNING). Perhaps you don't see why your attitude pisses them off. Saying that you have a hard time accepting homosexuality is not really different from saying you have a hard time accepting interracial marriage. Think about it.

[Beeth]

Out of curiosity, is a person allowed to find homosexuality icky and still support gay marriage, lgbt rights etc.? Or, in order to qualify as a leftist, that isn't enough? just wondering what comrades think.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Out of curiosity, is a person allowed to find homosexuality icky and still support gay marriage, lgbt rights etc.? Or, in order to qualify as a leftist, that isn't enough? just wondering what comrades think.

Do you mean like in the acts? In the acts, of course you can. Many sexual practices are gross to people but don't at all condemn it nor the people who do it.

[Luís Henrique]

To the author, I would suggest looking up the "True Finns" political party in Finland. They hold similar views. Also, some would argue many populist politicians of South America subscribe(d) to the same view (Huge Chavez, who is deeply religious, Evo Morales, the Workers Party in Brazil, perhaps even Juan Peron)

Perón was a man of the 30s, so he probably had an accordingly 30s mentality, and I am not in the mood of defending reactionary dictators, even against out of the blue accusations. But Chávez or the Workers' Party? What makes you think they adhere to sexism and homophobia?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

To be honest guys, I'm not really comfortable with people referring to LBGT people as 'the gays' or 'gays', it's a really loaded term.

In which case it would probably be necessary to change the "G" in "LGBT"...

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

You should think for a moment, what does "unnatural" exactly mean?

God, for instance, is unnatural, as well as a dear hunting down and eating a wolf.

Now, with regard to this latter example, do we actually see something like that actually occurring? No, we surely don't.

So what does this mean for our working definition of what is unnatural? Simply that transcendent non-physical "beings" are quite unnatural, but also and more importantly, that the actual stuff living beings do is the basis of our thought about what is natural and what is not.

As others have said, it is well documented that animals engage in homosexual sex. And humans do and have been doing so for quite some time now. The conclusion would be that by no means you can conclude that homosexuality is unnatural.

This concerns the argument and its veracity. There is the trickier part, and that concerns how and why such ideas of the unnatural appear, how they function, and specifically, why you hold them personally.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Out of curiosity, is a person allowed to find homosexuality icky and still support gay marriage, lgbt rights etc.? Or, in order to qualify as a leftist, that isn't enough? just wondering what comrades think.
Your personal reaction to homosexuality, while not exactly highly evolved in this case, is not the point. If you are willing to fight to support gay rights, that is what is key.

[Sam_b]

In which case it would probably be necessary to change the "G" in "LGBT".

I am sure Luis you understand the perjorative use of 'the gays' in many societies, as well as the fact it's also used as a catch-all term to describe everyone in the LGBTQ community.

[MarxArchist]

As a someone who identifies with the left politically,do i really have to support feminism and gay rights? I'm quite socially conservative.
Being against identity politics doesn't mean you're against equality and the liberation of subjugated/oppressed people it means you disagree with certain tactics to fight racism/sexism/homophobia/colonialism. Being a "social conservative communist" is like being an amphibian who's a mammal. Square peg/round hole. We're concerned with human liberation not just economic liberation. :confused:
This sort of things is kinda common in Eastern European x-Marxist states. Right wing Marxists. I attribute it to the confusion caused by the transition from Marxist (state capitalist) to bourgeois capitalist society.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I know I shouldn't be doing this, but I just realised something here:


I'm not sure if the original socialism of the 19th century which is what I understand leftism is generally, were even about things like gender!

This demonstrates your lack of knowledge of 19th century socialism. Gay rights were extensively fought for, and gender equality was a hot topic. August Bebel, member of the USPD and dedicated socialist, made the first speech in recorded history for the support of LGBT rights, and even a call for immediate removal of the homophobic laws currently in place at that time. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1898/01/13.htm)

As for feminism!? Feminism has been one of the beating hearts and centers of the socialist movement ever since it's conception! One only needs to look at the massive involvement of females during the revolutions of Europe to see this! To think, at that time, that this communism can be brought about when half of the world's population is consistently oppressed and exploited, would render you a madman!

[Karl Renegade]

"You are unsure how it is somehow your problem? Mate you are the problem. You've disenfranchised us precisely by singling us out as the 'unnatural' ones, that are different from you because of the partners we have. You built this wall and seemingly have no interest in tearing it down.

To you, we are 'them'. That says a lot."

First of all, you don't know me at all so don't judge me. Believe it or not I do have homosexual friends. So according to you, anyone who does not actively support the LGBT movement is a bigot? and you wonder why some people don't like SOME of you! This must be the kind of superior "liberal" western values you westerners are always talking about and the ones you use to justify the invasion of "backward" countries. Seems like just some hedonistic relativism to me. The results of feminism/LGBT movements' attempts to destroy traditional gender roles are are obviously negative and apparent in the west like falling native birth rates which explains your deep fear of immigrants. no one here should worry about me, judging from the posts, It's obvious I hold the minority opinion.

[Brutus]

We don't have a deep fear of immigrants. I welcome them.

[LeonJWilliams]

If you are 'left' then you support ALL oppressed people. Women and homosexuals are oppressed people in society.

If you don't support woman and homosexuals fight for equality then you are not 'left'.

[Brutus]

You are at best, a strasserist.

[Crux]

First of all, you don't know me at all so don't judge me. Believe it or not I do have homosexual friends. So according to you, anyone who does not actively support the LGBT movement is a bigot? and you wonder why some people don't like SOME of you! This must be the kind of superior "liberal" western values you westerners are always talking about and the ones you use to justify the invasion of "backward" countries. Seems like just some hedonistic relativism to me. The results of feminism/LGBT movements' attempts to destroy traditional gender roles are are obviously negative and apparent in the west like falling native birth rates which explains your deep fear of immigrants. no one here should worry about me, judging from the posts, It's obvious I hold the minority opinion.
Internalizing racist logic much?


As a man, I don't think it's fair being portrayed by feminist/LGBT movement and supporters as an oppressor all the time. I've never made a conscious decision to be an oppressor of women/homosexuals. What exactly do they want? What do they expect of men? How much of these "rights" are we supposed to give them(not even sure if men should be the ones to give it to them since I'm not even sure we were the ones that took it from them) without it becoming a case of reverse discrimination? As for homosexuals and their cause of gay marriage, how can I be expected to be accepting of that if I find it difficult to accept homosexuality to begin with? Why don't I accept homosexuality? not because I find it immoral but because I just find it unnatural.
You don't find homosexuality natural and worry about women and LGBT-people being given rights. Why?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am sure Luis you understand the perjorative use of 'the gays' in many societies, as well as the fact it's also used as a catch-all term to describe everyone in the LGBTQ community.

I think three letters can make a lot of difference in this case. Saying "the gays" comes across as somewhat depersonalising at best, if not outright pejorative in the first instance. Saying "gay people" instead conveys homosexual orientation without de-emphasising the subject's humanity.

Disclaimer: I'm a cisgender (sort of, I think) bisexual male, so people of other backgrounds may have different impressions/experiences.

[#FF0000]

First of all, you don't know me at all so don't judge me. Believe it or not I do have homosexual friends.

That doesn't mean anything, I'm sorry to say.


So according to you, anyone who does not actively support the LGBT movement is a bigot?

No -- why they do not support the LGBT movement is kind of important here.


This must be the kind of superior "liberal" western values you westerners are always talking about and the ones you use to justify the invasion of "backward" countries.

Oh shut the fuck up, dude. You have a shitty and uininformed worldview and people disagree strongly with you. Find a thicker skin.


The results of feminism/LGBT movements' attempts to destroy traditional gender roles are are obviously negative and apparent in the west like falling native birth rates which explains your deep fear of immigrants.

A change from one mode of production to another -- a revolution -- necessarily includes a change in "traditional gender roles. The family has changed over thousands of years because of material factors. Not because gay people and women said "hey treat us better".

And the idea that birth rates are falling because of feminism and the LGBT movement is some hella bizarre paranoid fantasy that ignores, uh, far better explanations.

Are you familiar with any feminist texts at all? Have you ever heard feminism explained from the feminist's perspective, or only from others attacking the movement?

[Karl Renegade]

didn't know there were so many "lifestyle" leftists in this forum.

[Art Vandelay]

And the idea that birth rates are falling because of feminism and the LGBT movement is some hella bizarre paranoid fantasy that ignores, uh, far better explanations.

Not to mention that birth rates falling would be a good thing.

[Art Vandelay]

didn't know there were so many "lifestyle" leftists in this forum.

Shield yourself from criticism through the use of ad-hominems, rather then attempt to purge the reactionary sentiments within yourself. This has nothing to do with 'lifestylism' (Im kinda thinking you don't really understand what that word means, since you've used it so improperly here) but with bigotry. The struggle for gender equality is intrinsically linked to the anti-capitalist struggle.

"Worker's of all countries unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!....oh wait you're a "faggot"? never mind then, we'll surpass capital without you"

:rolleyes:

[Hiero]

You should read Understanding Gender: A struggle within struggle (http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?ID=2168). It was a class written by the South African Trade Union Congress for unionist to understand gender struggles within the workers struggle.

And once again I am disappointed (though not surprised) at how the majority of people on this site that have no tactical and common sense approaches for dealing with working people and people outside of the Anglo and white world who hold reactionary views. Some people on this website while supposedly fighting against oppression always seem to fail to understand that oppression while being structural is also deeply embedded and not something that can simply be 'thought out' of the body like an exorcism. It is only through deep reflection on others and self that things that appear natural can come to be seen as social/cultural discourses.

Here someone comes along saying "why do I think this way?", basically asking why am I wrong? And the best some people can come up with "you're wrong because you're wrong".

[Hiero]

You are at best, a strasserist.

What an ahistorical and idiosyncratic thing to say, I am sure the Catholic Asian would have been a real hit with the Strasserist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not to mention that birth rates falling would be a good thing.

For what reason precisely? I know that at 7 billion and counting we're far from running out of people (in which case falling birth rates would be a neutral phenomenon), but please don't tell me you buy into that reactionary "overpopulation" bullshit often touted by liberals and which more often than not ends up targeting the larger proportion of the economically and politically powerless rather than those with control over the world's wealth.

[Crux]

didn't know there were so many "lifestyle" leftists in this forum.
Yet you're the one pre-occupied with the lifestyles of others.

[#FF0000]

didn't know there were so many "lifestyle" leftists in this forum.

Welp, I guess you're done pretending you're interested in having an actual discussion, then?

Come on, guy.

[Art Vandelay]

I think three letters can make a lot of difference in this case. Saying "the gays" comes across as somewhat depersonalising at best, if not outright pejorative in the first instance. Saying "gay people" instead conveys homosexual orientation without de-emphasising the subject's humanity.

Disclaimer: I'm a cisgender (sort of, I think) bisexual male, so people of other backgrounds may have different impressions/experiences.

The world has enough resources to sustain something like 12 billion people (this is off the top of my head) and the whole 'overpopulation' argument is neo-Malthusian nonsense. That said, if birthrates continue to sky rocket in the manner in which they have the past half a century, it won't be long before we are able to dismiss overpopulation arguments so flippantly.

[Goblin]

didn't know there were so many "lifestyle" leftists in this forum.
Ever met a leftist whos not a "lifestyle" leftist?