Communism and Feminism

[Soomie]

Is there something wrong with being a Communist, and being anti-feminist and an MRA? Because I am. I’m a female. I was sexually assaulted 2 years ago. Up until two months ago, I was a feminist, but then I decided to take the red pill and started researching the MRM. That’s not to say that I don’t support women’s rights and gender equality. I definitely do. However, I feel that modern day feminism in the western world is no longer fighting for gender equality, but gender privilege. Are women still oppressed in certain ways and in certain parts of the world? Absolutely. But I will not stand by and have feminism tell me that just because I am a woman that I am oppressed, and that all men are just waiting for any opportunity to rape, abuse, and objectify me. I am a humanist. I’m a very altruistic person, and I have a zero tolerance policy for discrimination against race, class, gender, religion, and sexual orientation across the board. And yet I feel that feminism is one of the most bigoted and sexist ideologies that I have come across. As a Communist, I have been chastised for being anti-feminist, and I can’t understand why. I’m just wondering if any other Communists out there share this view point, or have an opinion of it either way.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What privileges are feminists struggling for?

[Soomie]

When I refer to privilege, I am referring to radical feminists who have become so misandristic in their demands of equality as to be fighting for inequality between the sexes. A lot of people laugh at the idea of misandry, and compare it to misogyny as if to point out that it is less extreme. Feminism claims to be fighting for equality of the genders, but everything seems to be focused on bettering women alone. When I ask a feminist what feminism has done to dismantle the idea of the disposable male, they become speechless and can't answer me. Yet it is just as important, if not more important, as some of the things women go through. I can sit down on this thread and explain to you what I know about male oppression and the MRM, and it will be coming from a previous female feminist who never in a million years thought she would consider the idea that men are in fact oppressed. I became a Men's Rights Activist, because it made me confident to be a woman again. Feminism had me terrified, and I have noticed this trend with feminists. Feminism had me thinking that every man on the street was just waiting for an opportunity to cat call me, or drag me in alley to rape me. I was constantly uncomfortable at the pool if there were men out, because they would be looking at me. I was afraid to walk by men at the bus stop because they might cat call me. I was in constant fear that my SO was going to cheat on me, because that's what men do, right? I went from being an independent and confident woman who had always been surrounded by guy friends to a fearful and uncomfortable woman. And then I discovered the Men's Rights Movement. They were the ones who brought me back to be proud and happy to be a woman. And I think that that is so ironic considering that that's the exact thing that feminism is aiming to do.

[human strike]

You're treating feminism as if it's some kind of homogenous blob and not the intensely diverse movement that it is. Are you rejecting the existence of patriarchy, a system whereby men dominate women?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

When I refer to privilege, I am referring to radical feminists who have become so misandristic in their demands of equality as to be fighting for inequality between the sexes. A lot of people laugh at the idea of misandry, and compare it to misogyny as if to point out that it is less extreme. Feminism claims to be fighting for equality of the genders, but everything seems to be focused on bettering women alone. When I ask a feminist what feminism has done to dismantle the idea of the disposable male, they become speechless and can't answer me. Yet it is just as important, if not more important, as some of the things women go through. I can sit down on this thread and explain to you what I know about male oppression and the MRM, and it will be coming from a previous female feminist who never in a million years thought she would consider the idea that men are in fact oppressed. I became a Men's Rights Activist, because it made me confident to be a woman again. Feminism had me terrified, and I have noticed this trend with feminists. Feminism had me thinking that every man on the street was just waiting for an opportunity to cat call me, or drag me in alley to rape me. I was constantly uncomfortable at the pool if there were men out, because they would be looking at me. I was afraid to walk by men at the bus stop because they might cat call me. I was in constant fear that my SO was going to cheat on me, because that's what men do, right? I went from being an independent and confident woman who had always been surrounded by guy friends to a fearful and uncomfortable woman. And then I discovered the Men's Rights Movement. They were the ones who brought me back to be proud and happy to be a woman. And I think that that is so ironic considering that that's the exact thing that feminism is aiming to do.

Right..but your original post referred to privileges that feminists were fighting for. Can you list them for me?

[MarxArchist]

You're treating feminism as if it's some kind of homogenous blob and not the intensely diverse movement that it is. Are you rejecting the existence of patriarchy, a system whereby men dominate women?
Whiteness the affect second wave sex negative lesbian and radical feminism has on some people. Running into the "safe and secure arms of the
mens rights movement" is an absurd reaction non the less (usually employed by men seeking to maintain privilege). Sorry OP, I just don't think embracing men's rights activism is in any way shape or form a viable alternative or reaction to the shoddy feminist theory/practice that does indeed exist. you're going to have to be extremely specific with the problems you have with feminism and why you embraced MRA. This requires effort I know.

[human strike]

Whiteness the affect second wave sex negative lesbian and radical feminism has on some people.

Though it may be relevant in this specific instance, I think generally MRA has very little to do with that. It is feminism as a whole that has quite rightly challenged and unsettled the role of men in society and it is patriarchy that has failed to offer viable alternatives. This is where I would say that MRA comes from.

With some notable exceptions, the feminist movement (speaking in very general terms) hasn't exactly embraced the idea of alternative masculinities that well either unfortunately. Men have to be seen as more than "allies", they have to be seen as people who are actively alienated by patriarchy despite the privilege it offers them - they have to be seen as at least potential feminists.

[Philosophos]

I think that Soomie refers to radical feminists that believe matriarchy is the only solution to prevent patriarchy she has some difficulty in understanding the reason. (If I'm not right just tell me).

[MarxArchist]

Running into the "safe and secure arms of the
mens rights movement" is an absurd reaction non the less (usually employed by men seeking to maintain privilege).You left the above out for some reason.


Though it may be relevant in this specific instance, I think generally MRA has very little to do with that. It is feminism as a whole that has quite rightly challenged and unsettled the role of men in society and it is patriarchy that has failed to offer viable alternatives.


My point was, within the feminist umbrella, there are viable alternatives to theory that is bat shit insane. Running into mens rights activism isnt a logical reaction to backwards feminist theory.



This is where I would say that MRA comes from.

My conclusion was that most MRA's are men who are trying to maintain privilege.



Men have to be seen as more than "allies", they have to be seen as people who are actively alienated by patriarchy despite the privilege it offers them - they have to be seen as at least potential feminists.

And the same can be said of capitalists. Hell, Engels was a capitalist but this doesn't mean Marxist theory hasn't resulted in communists having a strong dislike or hatred of capitalists. In turn, unfortunately, a mentality created by the second wave sex negative lesbian and radical feminist position isn't inclusive to say the least, does indeed foster a sort of paranoia surrounding men in general and in many cases advocates women separate themselves from men. Women such as Ireen von Wachenfeldt are the result of the theory I'm criticizing. Women who are making feminism in general take two steps back after taking one step forward with asinine theory being put into action.

[human strike]

In turn, unfortunately, a mentality created by the second wave sex negative lesbian and radical feminist position isn't inclusive to say the least, does indeed foster a sort of paranoia surrounding men in general and in many cases advocates women separate themselves from men. Women such as Ireen von Wachenfeldt are the result of the theory I'm criticizing. Women who are making feminism in general take two steps back after taking one step forward with asinine theory being put into action.

If there is a suspicion towards men I'd wager it stems much more from women's everyday experiences of being dominated and oppressed by men than anything radical feminists said. Maybe I'm way off here, there are many correct criticisms to be made of second-wave radical feminism, but I feel like it gets far more attention and is treated with way more relevance than it deserves and from many different directions. I know a lot of feminists, like personally, but I don't know any that could be described as that kind of feminist - maybe I'm just living in a bubble, but I think feminism has progressed a lot in the last 40 years and that radical and separatist ideas are not at all dominant anymore and that we should all stop talking about them as if they still are...

[MarxArchist]

maybe I'm just living in a bubble, but I think feminism has progressed a lot in the last 40 years and that radical and separatist ideas are not at all dominant anymore and that we should all stop talking about them as if they still are...

They're still are popular where I live (more so in San Fransisco than over here in Oakland because of the larger lesbian population in San Fransisco) and are gaining popularity online for some bizarre reason. Also, acting like second wave sex negative positions haven't "bleed" into other aspects of feminism is simply a denial of reality- the "sex wars" aren't over and it's not like people are standing on strictly defined ideological grounds, most people aren't even aware of what the heck I'm talking about. Anyway, perhaps we should stop talking about anti trans positions and also ignore where they're coming from? An idea doesn't have to be dominate to have a negative impact- that's my point. I think people who put forth the argument you just did are having too much of a knee jerk reaction to defend anything and everything that is "feminism". There are some major problems with theory/practice within the feminist "umbrella". Putting your head in the sand or plugging your ears doesn't help the situation and in the OP's case joining mens rights activists is about the worst thing one can do. Minimizing the impact and source of shitty feminist theory as you're doing isn't as bad as joining MRA's of course but you can go on practicing the head in sand technique if you please. I'll simply have none of it and criticize nonsense when I see it. All you're doing is displaying your ignorance as far as the splits within feminism, the various tendencies under the feminist umbrella and what impact these tendencies/theories have on practice. I think it key to separate the various threads of feminism specifically so people don't see feminism as "some kind of homogenous blob and not the intensely diverse movement that it is" and in turn reject it outright because of the theory and actions of certain (usually) sex negative lesbian and radical feminists.

I'm going to have to spend 3 hours posting links, articles, passages from books, quotes (in context), content on websites, videos etc in order to fend off your assertion that second wave sex neg radical and lesbian theories aren't popular within the feminist umbrella at the moment. I will gladly do it when I have time.

[Soomie]

So, you want to know my overall problems with feminism.

The Pay Gap "Myth"
It has been debunked. Do men make more than women? Absolutely. But it makes statistical sense. If a man makes more than a woman, it is often because of the choices he has made, such as "working more hours, taking fewer days off, working overtime, doing risky jobs, etc." Women are more likely to major in things like education, or nursing, so of course the wage gap is going to show up. But when you compare a woman who has majored and works in something such as engineering or medicine to a man who has done the same, the man and the woman make the same amount, and in fact, the woman sometimes makes more. Now, in a Communist society, everyone would be "paid" (I use this loosely since there would be no money) the same amount regardless of job, but we're talking about Feminism in a Capitalist world.

Objectification
I just want to post a quote from a Men's Rights Activist when I brought this up before I was familiar with the movement:

"I won't be so naive as to say men don't objectify women; but women are the worst objectifiers. Darwin calls it Sexual Selection; women objectify men as a means to an end, men objectify women for her form. What women in general think that men want, is radically different than what men actually want; and the magazines reflect this. Women's magazines all have a stereotypical model of "this is what men want", which is so far out to lunch as to not be worth taking seriously.

If you want a clue, google porn. Porn does not come in one flavor, "young thin and submissive"; quite the contrary, porn understands that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You will find MILF's, grannies, barely legals, smokers, doms, trannies, BDSM, lesbians, gays, CFNM, cuckholders, exhibitionists, etc, etc, etc. What you won't find in the porn industry, is photo-shopping. Rita Faltoyano is known for the big moles on her body, a fat one big as your thumbs is on her tit. There's another girl who has a skin blemish on her knee. There's a woman who has a burn on her body. There are women with c-section scars. There are bald women. Sasha Grey was a college student who enjoyed watching porn, and got into the industry because she didn't think there were enough women who talked dirty in porn. Many of the best stars, have college degrees, and... small tits.

That's the crux; that's what bothers women. Women see men for the clothes they wear, their watch, their shoes, their car, their house; together it makes his worth; somehow this is ok. Men see women for the form underneath everything she puts on; and somehow this is insulting.

But if sex sells, how come tool catalogs aren't rife with scantly clad women? How come pick-up truck commercials feature dirty rugged working men? How come family vehicles are advertized with fully clothed... mothers?"

The Disposable Male
Feminism doesn't address this.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminism-and-the-disposable-male/

Why I support what the MRM is fighting for:

*Reproductive Rights: It's a sticky situation, but men have nearly none. MRAs are fighting for a male birth control and it is under research and testing.

*Divorce: Let's be honest, it favors women.

*Domestic Violence where men are the victim: It is ignored and under reported

*Health of men: Shorter lifespans and male specific diseases that are rarely addressed or taken seriously by the public at large (prostate cancer vs breast cancer)

*Military conscription

The MRM is not all "We hate women! Women are taking over everything!" We just address things from the male side of it, and it's mostly about male problems. But with things that the MRM has debunked, such as the idea of a wage gap and objectification (this is more or less an economic issue), what does feminism have left to accomplish?

I know that a lot of people here, and Communists in general, are feminists. But if you have an open mind and you actually research the Men's Rights Movement, a lot of feminist arguments fall short. At the end of the day, I'm for the equality of everyone. I'm not a feminist, because like I said, most of what I felt affected me has been debunked. I'm an MRA when it comes to fighting for male rights such as those that I have listed above, none of which involve keeping women "barefoot and pregnant."

[MarxArchist]

If there is a suspicion towards men I'd wager it stems much more from women's everyday experiences of being dominated and oppressed by men than anything radical feminists said.

You think the mentality second wave sex negative theories creates within the mind of the feminist reading such theory is the same mentality any average woman on the streets has (without reading any of the theories from the previously mentioned tendency)?

Many people on this very site regurgitate second wave sex negative theories on a regular basis because much of it, for some reason as of late, has been melded with "third wave" feminism, socialist feminism, materialist feminism etc. I think it has much to do with the internet. It's like people are just picking and choosing "feminist" ideas and mashing them together in a hodgepodge of drek with absolutely no conception of the history of what they're regurgitating which ends up alienating a large portion of the population. Confusion, baseless accusations of sexism, shifty definitions of rape, questionable theories attached to patriarchy etc. Hell, I was accused of being a "rape supporter" on this very site two days ago in this pathetic thread (below) do that to a person who doesn't understand feminist theory and they'll more than likely reject feminism outright.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lying-manipulating-others-t181507/index.html

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

When I refer to privilege, I am referring to radical feminists who have become so misandristic in their demands of equality as to be fighting for inequality between the sexes. A lot of people laugh at the idea of misandry, and compare it to misogyny as if to point out that it is less extreme.

I have no idea if misandry, to the extent that it exists, is "less extreme" according to some set of criteria. That said, misandry is individual, misogyny is systematic, the ideological reflection of the system of violence against women as women. There is no such system of violence against men as men. The difference between misandry and misogyny is the same as the difference between black power and white power.


Feminism claims to be fighting for equality of the genders, but everything seems to be focused on bettering women alone. When I ask a feminist what feminism has done to dismantle the idea of the disposable male, they become speechless and can't answer me. Yet it is just as important, if not more important, as some of the things women go through.

The above paragraph is, I think, a good example of what the idealist focus of bourgeois feminism - talking almost exclusively about the cultural assumptions about men and women, and ignoring the material basis of the exploitation of women - leads to. Cultural ideas about both men and women are fairly fucked up, that is true. But men are not subjected to systematic violence as men. Cis-men are not beaten up or raped for dressing in a certain manner, the state has not seized control over their internal organs, and so on, and so on.

As for the notion that men are disposable, remind me, in the case of war, which gender is usually armed and trained by the state, and which gender is left at home to suffer the effects of war, including sexual assault, military strikes, famines etc.? I think the "disposable men" that make up the American military in Iraq are better off than the supposedly protected Iraqi women.




The Pay Gap "Myth"
It has been debunked. Do men make more than women? Absolutely. But it makes statistical sense. If a man makes more than a woman, it is often because of the choices he has made, such as "working more hours, taking fewer days off, working overtime, doing risky jobs, etc." Women are more likely to major in things like education, or nursing, so of course the wage gap is going to show up. But when you compare a woman who has majored and works in something such as engineering or medicine to a man who has done the same, the man and the woman make the same amount, and in fact, the woman sometimes makes more. Now, in a Communist society, everyone would be "paid" (I use this loosely since there would be no money) the same amount regardless of job, but we're talking about Feminism in a Capitalist world.

So why is the average pay in "thinks like education, or nursing" - or any female-dominated profession, really, including the textile industry - so much lower than in other fields? Not to mention the pressures on women to not enter the workforce - pressures that are the result of the capitalist mode of production and its reliance on the family unit for both reproduction of the labour force and as a supply of unpaid domestic labour.



Objectification
I just want to post a quote from a Men's Rights Activist when I brought this up before I was familiar with the movement:

"I won't be so naive as to say men don't objectify women; but women are the worst objectifiers. Darwin calls it Sexual Selection; women objectify men as a means to an end, men objectify women for her form. What women in general think that men want, is radically different than what men actually want; and the magazines reflect this. Women's magazines all have a stereotypical model of "this is what men want", which is so far out to lunch as to not be worth taking seriously.

If you want a clue, google porn. Porn does not come in one flavor, "young thin and submissive"; quite the contrary, porn understands that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You will find MILF's, grannies, barely legals, smokers, doms, trannies, BDSM, lesbians, gays, CFNM, cuckholders, exhibitionists, etc, etc, etc. What you won't find in the porn industry, is photo-shopping. Rita Faltoyano is known for the big moles on her body, a fat one big as your thumbs is on her tit. There's another girl who has a skin blemish on her knee. There's a woman who has a burn on her body. There are women with c-section scars. There are bald women. Sasha Grey was a college student who enjoyed watching porn, and got into the industry because she didn't think there were enough women who talked dirty in porn. Many of the best stars, have college degrees, and... small tits.

That's the crux; that's what bothers women. Women see men for the clothes they wear, their watch, their shoes, their car, their house; together it makes his worth; somehow this is ok. Men see women for the form underneath everything she puts on; and somehow this is insulting.

See, if objectification was merely about men looking at women as sexual objects, only the extreme prudes masquerading as feminists would object. The problem is that there are very real pressures on women to present themselves as sexual objects. I imagine most women who are attracted to men would like to be viewed by men as sexual objects from time to time, but society pressures women to present themselves as such, all the time, even to men (and women) they are not in the least interested in.

Incidentally, it annoys me that lesbians are often viewed as nothing more than entertainment for men. That attitude often leads to harassment.




The Disposable Male
Feminism doesn't address this.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...sposable-male/ (http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminism-and-the-disposable-male/)

Oh god, you can't have actually linked to an article that outright advocates restricting the freedom of women?



Why I support what the MRM is fighting for:

*Reproductive Rights: It's a sticky situation, but men have nearly none. MRAs are fighting for a male birth control and it is under research and testing.

...condoms already exist, and are predominantly used by men? The entire paragraph makes no sense, unless "male birth control" means men taking control over a woman's body (in which case, congratulations, male birth control already exists in the form of the patriarchal bourgeois dictatorship).


*Divorce: Let's be honest, it favors women.

How so?



*Domestic Violence where men are the victim: It is ignored and under reported

*Health of men: Shorter lifespans and male specific diseases that are rarely addressed or taken seriously by the public at large (prostate cancer vs breast cancer)

*Military conscription

See, these are all good causes, and no proletarian feminist would oppose them. What we oppose is the use of these causes as a rhetorical cudgel against women's liberation.


The MRM is not all "We hate women! Women are taking over everything!" We just address things from the male side of it, and it's mostly about male problems. But with things that the MRM has debunked, such as the idea of a wage gap and objectification (this is more or less an economic issue), what does feminism have left to accomplish?

I can think of a few things:



smashing all restrictions on abortion;
fighting for protection against discrimination and for affirmative action;
fighting for legislation to increase the pay in female-dominated professions;
fighting for stricter penalties for crimes against women as women;
establishing solidarity networks, networks of shelters, safe places etc.;
improving the existent system of creches, kindergartens, etc.;
ending human trafficking;
ending unpaid domestic labour;



and so on, and so on. Of course, most of these demands are impossible to fulfill under capitalism.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Try to remember that a century ago women were considered as a property, had no rights to vote nor divorce, no access to abortion, rights are extremely restricted to hold property, limited or no access to education, and the career choice were extremely limited. Feminism movement helped to change all that.

[human strike]

They're still are popular where I live (more so in San Fransisco than over here in Oakland because of the larger lesbian population in San Fransisco) and are gaining popularity online for some bizarre reason. Also, acting like second wave sex negative positions haven't "bleed" into other aspects of feminism is simply a denial of reality- the "sex wars" aren't over and it's not like people are standing on strictly defined ideological grounds, most people aren't even aware of what the heck I'm talking about. Anyway, perhaps we should stop talking about anti trans positions and also ignore where they're coming from? An idea doesn't have to be dominate to have a negative impact- that's my point. I think people who put forth the argument you just did are having too much of a knee jerk reaction to defend anything and everything that is "feminism". There are some major problems with theory/practice within the feminist "umbrella". Putting your head in the sand or plugging your ears doesn't help the situation and in the OP's case joining mens rights activists is about the worst thing one can do. Minimizing the impact and source of shitty feminist theory as you're doing isn't as bad as joining MRA's of course but you can go on practicing the head in sand technique if you please. I'll simply have none of it and criticize nonsense when I see it. All you're doing is displaying your ignorance as far as the splits within feminism, the various tendencies under the feminist umbrella and what impact these tendencies/theories have on practice. I think it key to separate the various threads of feminism specifically so people don't see feminism as "some kind of homogenous blob and not the intensely diverse movement that it is" and in turn reject it outright because of the theory and actions of certain (usually) sex negative lesbian and radical feminists.

I'm going to have to spend 3 hours posting links, articles, passages from books, quotes (in context), content on websites, videos etc in order to fend off your assertion that second wave sex neg radical and lesbian theories aren't popular within the feminist umbrella at the moment. I will gladly do it when I have time.

I'm not ignoring the impact of second-wave radical feminism - I have strong criticisms to make as well as appreciating that there is also a positive side to it - and I do see its legacy.

I'm confused as to why you talk about "lesbian and radical" feminism as if they're the same thing or the same criticisms apply to both.


You think the mentality second wave sex negative theories creates within the mind of the feminist reading such theory is the same mentality any average woman on the streets has (without reading any of the theories from the previously mentioned tendency)?

No. I just don't think women need to have read any of that theory to be suspicious of men.


Many people on this very site regurgitate second wave sex negative theories on a regular basis because much of it, for some reason as of late, has been melded with "third wave" feminism, socialist feminism, materialist feminism etc. I think it has much to do with the internet. It's like people are just picking and choosing "feminist" ideas and mashing them together in a hodgepodge of drek with absolutely no conception of the history of what they're regurgitating which ends up alienating a large portion of the population. Confusion, baseless accusations of sexism, shifty definitions of rape, questionable theories attached to patriarchy etc. Hell, I was accused of being a "rape supporter" on this very site two days ago in this pathetic thread (below) do that to a person who doesn't understand feminist theory and they'll more than likely reject feminism outright.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lying-manipulating-others-t181507/index.html

It's a good thing you understand feminist theory then - though judging from that thread it doesn't seem to stop you verging on rape apologia.

[MarxArchist]

It's a good thing you understand feminist theory then - though judging from that thread it doesn't seem to stop you verging on rape apologia.

And you're standing on the precipice of idiocy overlooking the void into an eternal nothingness of stupidity. Of course this isn't as bad as being called a rape apologist. Quote me "being on the verge" of rape apology. What does that even mean? Can one "almost" be racist? Can you "kinda rape" someone? How am I "on the verge" of rape apology? The root of my questioning people in that thread, the main contention I have with this definition of rape is where is the line drawn. No one will answer that from 'your side' of the imaginary line that's been drawn in the sand. As it stands what, about 10 people were broadly painted as rape apologists? Not just me. And done by a person who thinks the age of consent laws are too high (age 18).

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK, I checked out their website. It's just one big troll of feminism with right-wing and libertarian ideological undertones. It's easier to sell sexism by saying it's counter-counter sexism... just like it's easier to promote racism by saying, "I'm not a racist, but all those black welfare queens are taking advantage of good white taxpayers"... and it's even easier if you use other terms for euphamisims which has been the strategy of the far-right for a while now.

[Quail]

So, you want to know my overall problems with feminism.

The Pay Gap "Myth"
It has been debunked. Do men make more than women? Absolutely. But it makes statistical sense. If a man makes more than a woman, it is often because of the choices he has made, such as "working more hours, taking fewer days off, working overtime, doing risky jobs, etc." Women are more likely to major in things like education, or nursing, so of course the wage gap is going to show up. But when you compare a woman who has majored and works in something such as engineering or medicine to a man who has done the same, the man and the woman make the same amount, and in fact, the woman sometimes makes more. Now, in a Communist society, everyone would be "paid" (I use this loosely since there would be no money) the same amount regardless of job, but we're talking about Feminism in a Capitalist world.

First you say, men make more money because of the choices he has made. Okay, on the surface that might make sense, but look a little deeper. Men choose to "work more hours, take fewer days off, work overtime" - and why can men make those choices? Mostly because women are still expected to do work in the home, such as household chores but more significantly childcare. It's all well and good saying that men make "better" choices, but it ignores the fact that women are less likely to be able to make these choices.
Secondly, there are more women in lower paid fields such as education and nursing. Now, these are important jobs, but they are "women's work" (or at least have traditionally been women's work) and so are undervalued and underpaid.
Finally, there is evidence that women in higher paid fields such as law do still earn less than their male colleagues for the same work. (I read this in an article recently but I'm not sure where - possibly the guardian/independent.)



I just want to post a quote from a Men's Rights Activist when I brought this up before I was familiar with the movement:

"I won't be so naive as to say men don't objectify women; but women are the worst objectifiers. Darwin calls it Sexual Selection; women objectify men as a means to an end, men objectify women for her form. What women in general think that men want, is radically different than what men actually want; and the magazines reflect this. Women's magazines all have a stereotypical model of "this is what men want", which is so far out to lunch as to not be worth taking seriously.

Women's magazines are incredibly sexist. But consider this: their articles are written with patriarchal gender roles in mind. It's not women's magazines being sexist against men. It's a result of patriarchy dictating that men and women should fit into specific, rigid roles.


If you want a clue, google porn. Porn does not come in one flavor, "young thin and submissive"; quite the contrary, porn understands that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You will find MILF's, grannies, barely legals, smokers, doms, trannies, BDSM, lesbians, gays, CFNM, cuckholders, exhibitionists, etc, etc, etc. What you won't find in the porn industry, is photo-shopping. Rita Faltoyano is known for the big moles on her body, a fat one big as your thumbs is on her tit. There's another girl who has a skin blemish on her knee. There's a woman who has a burn on her body. There are women with c-section scars. There are bald women. Sasha Grey was a college student who enjoyed watching porn, and got into the industry because she didn't think there were enough women who talked dirty in porn. Many of the best stars, have college degrees, and... small tits.

People are into different things in the bedroom? I don't see how that's an argument against the concept of sexual objectification. If anything is demonstrates that a wide range of women can be objectified, not just women who fit the traditional beauty ideal.


That's the crux; that's what bothers women. Women see men for the clothes they wear, their watch, their shoes, their car, their house; together it makes his worth; somehow this is ok. Men see women for the form underneath everything she puts on; and somehow this is insulting.

Basically to me, this guy comes across as disproving his own argument. If women do see men as the clothes they wear (their style, which shows their personality), etc., instead of a body to fuck (i.e. the "form underneath everything she puts on") that men see, then he is saying that men objectify women more than women objectify men.


But if sex sells, how come tool catalogs aren't rife with scantly clad women? How come pick-up truck commercials feature dirty rugged working men? How come family vehicles are advertized with fully clothed... mothers?"
For some products, sex probably isn't the most appropriate way to sell it. For example, a large family car. But it's obvious from all the billboards, TV adverts, etc., that scantily clad women are used a hell of a lot in advertising.


The Disposable Male
Feminism doesn't address this.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminism-and-the-disposable-male/

I don't have time to take apart the whole article, but doesn't feminism address this in breaking down gender roles? The idea that men should fight in the military, are more able to protect themselves, etc., is tied up to the patriarchal male gender role. Abolishing gender roles and seeing men and women as equally capable would deal with this issue.



Why I support what the MRM is fighting for:

*Reproductive Rights: It's a sticky situation, but men have nearly none. MRAs are fighting for a male birth control and it is under research and testing.

Male birth control is a good idea, and it would be good if men could share the responsibility. However, the risks of having sex for men are considerably lower. An unwanted pregnancy is pretty big and scary, and to a lot of women around the world, dangerous. Childbirth still kills an awful lot of women.



*Divorce: Let's be honest, it favors women.

Why is this though? Women are likely to earn less, as we have discussed above, which is partly because they are doing the domestic labour (another thing mostly women do which is undervalued). If you're talking about child custody, then yes, women are granted custody more often. This is partly because women are seen as naturally better at caring for people (due to patriarchal gender roles), and partly because in most cases, women do more of the work involved in looking after and bringing up the children (again, due to patriarchal gender roles).


*Domestic Violence where men are the victim: It is ignored and under reported
I don't have a problem with raising awareness of male domestic violence. However, I do think that domestic violence against women takes place in a different context, where violence and control of women is normalised.


*Health of men: Shorter lifespans and male specific diseases that are rarely addressed or taken seriously by the public at large (prostate cancer vs breast cancer)
I don't really know how awareness of various forms of cancer relate to men's "rights". There are public health campaigns for both breast and prostate cancer (leaflets in the doctor's, etc), and charities specific to both. Shorter lifespans are probably related to men doing more dangerous work, which I have covered above (women aren't considered to be as capable of doing such work).



*Military conscription

This has been covered above.


The MRM is not all "We hate women! Women are taking over everything!" We just address things from the male side of it, and it's mostly about male problems. But with things that the MRM has debunked, such as the idea of a wage gap and objectification (this is more or less an economic issue), what does feminism have left to accomplish?
Women's liberation? Sorry, but the MRM has not debunked the wage gap or sexual objectification. As a woman, I regularly face harassment in the street and when I go out to clubs. In the anarchist movement (which one might reasonably expect to treat people equally) women's voices still aren't heard and there are cases of sexual violence. Patriarchy is alive and well.


I know that a lot of people here, and Communists in general, are feminists. But if you have an open mind and you actually research the Men's Rights Movement, a lot of feminist arguments fall short. At the end of the day, I'm for the equality of everyone. I'm not a feminist, because like I said, most of what I felt affected me has been debunked. I'm an MRA when it comes to fighting for male rights such as those that I have listed above, none of which involve keeping women "barefoot and pregnant."
I have read MRM articles and remain unconvinced, for reasons I have articulated above. Not to mention, the MRM seems to attract an awful lot of disgusting misogynists.

Also, just as another point - being a woman who has experienced sexual violence does not make you immune to promoting patriarchal or sexist ideas.

[hatzel]

Also, just as another point - being a woman who has experienced sexual violence does not make you immune to promoting patriarchal or sexist ideas.

This may well be the crux of the issue, actually. I'm by no means a psychiatrist or any other kind of expert (or anything at all, for that matter), but I read the OP as effectively saying 'I was victimised as a woman; feminists make me feel that women are victimised.' That's the link between ideas that I see, how 'I was sexually assaulted 2 years ago' leads to 'I will not stand by and have feminism tell me that [...] all men are just waiting for any opportunity to rape, abuse, and objectify me,' and how embracing 'the other side,' so to speak, may actually be an attempt to alleviate the burden of an earlier trauma, though anybody else is free to tell me that I misunderstand, or that I'm casting my own assumptions onto the OP. However, I do not consider it particularly difficult to understand how it may come to pass that a woman who has been a victim of gendered violence thereafter prefers to see the best in men, rather than the worst, or to somehow declare oneself a 'friend of men' - or at least abandoning any hostile engagement with them or the social structures which benefit them, - in order to allay the fear of such an event being repeated (nor do I consider it difficult to understand how the same person could prefer to see the worst in men, rather than the best, and declare themselves an 'enemy of men,' for reasons which should be obvious).

It is certainly worth addressing the issue from a psychological perspective, how it may be somehow satisfying - emotionally speaking - to simply deny one's own feelings of victimhoom in various ways, almost as an ersatz for a genuine cessation of the status of victimhood itself. In such a case we can ask whether certain forms of feminist discourse might inadvertently alienate certain vulnerable women (and notice that I am using the word 'certain' rather liberally here, and for good reason), if they unfortunately reinforce a feeling of victimisation which one might prefer to hide away or escape from, if there is inadequate support for these people and their vulnerabilities. This is by no means unique to feminism, however; similar processes can be seen around questions of race and anti-racism, for example, with victimised minority individuals/groups sometimes wishing to cosy up to the dominant group in various ways - go and read some Fanon, it's all there! - rather than challenging the system of oppression. Needless to say, such issues must be taken seriously, and we would do well to tread gently...

[Soomie]

Everyone seems to be encased in one mind set, so there's really no point in debating it. I feel that I tried to open up a thread to a debate from both sides, but people have come in with one mind set and have gone about it critically. If you believe that the patriarchy is alive and well, then nothing I can say here will change your mind. But I think that to *truly* understand something, one must look at both sides of the issue with an open mind. Otherwise, how could you really understand it? I reject western feminism, because *I* personally don't think that it merits attention. Now, female oppression in other parts of the world is a different matter entirely, but it's also difficult to address because it becomes a cultural relativist issue. This is *my* opinion. That doesn't make it wrong, and that doesn't make it right. It's just the conclusion that *I* have come to after researching both sides. I have looked at both feminism, and the MRM, and after doing so I chose to lean more towards the MRM. However, I feel that the people here have not done that. I see the same issue with traditional economists. A marxian economist is well versed in economics from the traditional side of things, and from the marxian side of things which he or she has had to teach himself or herself. I have had marxian economists tell me that they can't sit on a panel and have a discussion with a traditional economist, because the traditional economists haven't taken the time to sit down and understand both sides of the equation and don't know what they're talking about. They focus on one side of things and miss the overall picture. And I feel that that is what is happening here. It's great to be passionate about something and to stick to the thing that makes us comfortable, but sometimes it is necessary to go out of our comfort zone to see things for what they really are.

[Soomie]

Also, everyone here seems to be highly against the Men's Rights Movement, and I just want to make sure that it's not because people have the wrong idea about it (which is what I feel at this point). So, could someone tell me what is so bad about it?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Everyone seems to be encased in one mind set, so there's really no point in debating it. I feel that I tried to open up a thread to a debate from both sides, but people have come in with one mind set and have gone about it critically. If you believe that the patriarchy is alive and well, then nothing I can say here will change your mind.

Ah, the old "you have to accept my position in order to accept my position" gem. Look, I am interested in a political debate about this, but it takes two or more to debate. Several people, including me, have responded to your post, and to reply with vague accusations of close-mindedness is hardly convincing.

If you need evidence that the patriarchy is alive and well "in the West", wherever that is, just recall the recent Steubenville case.

[#FF0000]

Is there something wrong with being a Communist, and being anti-feminist and an MRA? Because I am. I’m a female. I was sexually assaulted 2 years ago. Up until two months ago, I was a feminist, but then I decided to take the red pill and started researching the MRM.

lmfao

maybe you should read about feminism too while you are at it.

[#FF0000]

Also, everyone here seems to be highly against the Men's Rights Movement, and I just want to make sure that it's not because people have the wrong idea about it (which is what I feel at this point). So, could someone tell me what is so bad about it?

It is wrong at it's very core -- men are not oppressed because of their gender.

[Soomie]

It is wrong at it's very core -- men are not oppressed because of their gender.

Then how are women?

[Sotionov]

When I was a little younger, I went out with a trotskyist girl, and when I asked her are we going to split the bill, she gave me 'the look', so I paid for the drinks, so as not to turt out as rude, non-gentlemanly, or whatever. Why don't girls pay boys drinks? MR!

[#FF0000]

Then how are women?

Domestic labor
Rape culture
the "pink collar" job thing
Pay gaps
Limited access to education and resources compared to men.

Should I go on or

[Soomie]

Domestic labor
Rape culture
the "pink collar" job thing
Pay gaps
Limited access to education and resources compared to men.

Should I go on or

No, because for every peer reviewed journal you could find on all of those subjects to prove your point, I could find just as many to discredit them. That's why there's no point debating it. There are always two sides. You have to choose which side you want to believe.

[#FF0000]

No, because for every peer reviewed journal you could find on all of those subjects to prove your point, I could find just as many to discredit them. That's why there's no point debating it. There are always two sides. You have to choose which side you want to believe.

I challenge you to do that.

You don't "choose what you want to believe". You choose which side has more to back it up.

[Soomie]

I challenge you to do that.

You don't "choose what you want to believe". You choose which side has more to back it up.

There is a lot more as far as sources and literature go on the Capitalist side of things to "back it up." Does that make it more plausible?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Perhaps in terms of volume - not in terms of cogency or theoretical coherence. Now, will you respond to #FF0000's challenge and produce evidence against the aspects of patriarchy they have enumerated (I would add systematic bullying of younger women, restrictions on abortion and so on)?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

have you looked through adverts in a newspaper or on the side of a bus recently? Listened to the patronising way a lot of people still talk in when they refer to female workers? Just because a lot of really overt sexism has been eroded (or at least sent out of the public eye) does not mean that we have defeated our collective demons when it comes to the way we treat women. As with so many issues, it is a complex issue, some aspects are incredibly obvious (we still have top-shelf "lad's mags" which not only reduce women to objects to be looked at but also often print lists and articles ranging from cringeingly sexist to fucking scary levels of outright misogyny.) and some are incredibly subtle

[Soomie]

But for anyone who still believes the Wage Gap Myth then tell me why the labor market isn't flooded with women? Because it doesn't make economical sense. If a boss could get away with paying 2 women for a job that he would have to pay one man to do, then why aren't bosses out there hiring more women to do the job? Because they're not. That's the same argument some people use about immigrants: "Oh, they're taking our jobs!" No, they're just doing the jobs that you're not willing to do, or in this case, they're making choices that you're not willing to make. Dr. Warren Farrell spent about 15 years going over U.S. Census statistics and research studies. Farrell's research found that the wage gap exists not because of sexism, but because more men are willing to do certain kinds of jobs. "The average full-time working male works more than a full-time working female," Farrell said. Farrell illustrates his findings at lectures by asking men and women to stand up in answer to a series of questions about their job choices, such as whether they work more than 40 hours a week, or have held a job that has required them to work outdoors, or if they have 20 years experience in their current occupation. Again and again, more men stand up. Different job choices are why men earn more, Farrell says in his new book, "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It."

Dr. Farrell has a lot of interesting articles and books out about the topics of the wage gap and the "patriarchy." He used to be a strong feminist supporter and is the only male to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women in N.Y.C. His work is worth a read for anyone wanting to see a different side to some arguments that feminists press. I also recommend Girl Writes What. She is a female Men's Rights Activist who writes articles and posts videos about certain female arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos?sort=p&flow=grid&view=0

[Soomie]

Pink collar job thing - No idea what you're referring to.
Limited access to education and resources compared to men - Explain.
systematic bullying of younger women - Explain
Restrictions on abortion - This is a political and economic issue, not a gender issue.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No, because for every peer reviewed journal you could find on all of those subjects to prove your point, I could find just as many to discredit them. That's why there's no point debating it. There are always two sides. You have to choose which side you want to believe.

If you really think that there are '2 sides' to this debate then you really have no idea about patriarchal societies and the broad range of theories that attempt to conceptualize and critique these societies.

[#FF0000]

Pink collar job thing - No idea what you're referring to.

This might be a sign that you should give another serious and honest look at the feminist perspective, then.

But yeah, i'm referring to how "women's work" type jobs tend to be lower paying and less secure.


Limited access to education and resources compared to men - Explain.

Here's one example (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/science/bias-persists-against-women-of-science-a-study-says.html) that also sort of goes along with the "pink collar" thing. This kind of thing is especially egregious in the STEM fields -- where even though women do make up a lot of the students and do great on the tests (surpassing male students, very often), they simply don't get the same support that their male counterparts get, and end up taking lesser positions. You see if in a lot of other fields as well. In business, you see it with women being relegated to "dead end" positions in things like Human Resources. At my warehouse, you see a lot of women in lower-paying but lower impact positions, but not as many in the supposedly "higher impact" and higher paying positions such as forklift driver or whatever.


Restrictions on abortion - This is a political and economic issue, not a gender issue.

Er, a woman's bodily autonomy is 100% a gender issue.

[#FF0000]

But for anyone who still believes the Wage Gap Myth then tell me why the labor market isn't flooded with women?

Because women are seen as less competent and not well suited to certain jobs.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That, and they are needed as a reserve of unpaid domestic labour, which is reflected in the bourgeois ideology of motherhood. As for bullying of young women, I am talking about the specific mode of bullying that seems to be most prevalent - social exclusion and highly sexualised verbal harassment.

And, yes, abortion is pretty much a gender issue, and viewing it as some sort of grand philosophical dilemma obscures its principal aspect: the bourgeois, patriarchal state controlling women's bodies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But for anyone who still believes the Wage Gap Myth then tell me why the labor market isn't flooded with women?As service jobs have increased, it has been "flooded". In the US, women are 51% of the workforce.


Because it doesn't make economical sense. If a boss could get away with paying 2 women for a job that he would have to pay one man to do, then why aren't bosses out there hiring more women to do the job? In some ways they are... less doctors (usually male) and more nurses (usually female). But the pay gap is not based on individual wage-earners, as if a man and a woman work the same job and the woman gets paid less. It's a development because occupations that have been historically connected to women (usually subordinate or "support" positions) have had their status lowered. The way sexist attitudes plays into this is that women's labor is not considered as necessary or valuable (just like jobs often connected to young people) and so they would WANT to nurse and help people, their natural position in society is caring for children or the sick.


Because they're not. That's the same argument some people use about immigrants: "Oh, they're taking our jobs!" No, they're just doing the jobs that you're not willing to do, or in this case, they're making choices that you're not willing to make. No, that's ridiculous, immigrants also don't WANT to make less, their legal and social status means their jobs can be degraded just like work associated with women. It's creating a tiered workforce through legal or social or other means. Besides, what's the answer for immigrants? Fight and organize to get out of a second-class position in the workforce. The same goes for female workers: fight sexism, fight for equal pay, health benefits, paid maternity (and paternity) leave.


Dr. Warren Farrell spent about 15 years going over U.S. Census statistics and research studies. Farrell's research found that the wage gap exists not because of sexism, Hold up, I thought you said it was a myth... now you say it's real?


but because more men are willing to do certain kinds of jobs.Because they have been barred from higher levels of employment! Why? Because of sexism. This argument is circular because if women fight for better access and equal pay (i.e. some form of feminism) then they are wrong according to MRM, but if they don't then it becomes the explanation for why they get paid less... I guess underpaid women are just asking for it, eh?


Different job choices are why men earn more, Farrell says in his new book, "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It."Workers don't have all that much control over "job choices" this should be any radical's first clue that there's something off with this argument. Do black workers make less and work in crappier positions because of their choices?

Really this pay inequality is a men's issue too. If job pay-gap inequality was gone, since men and women often live together in duel-income groups sometimes called families, then the pay gap's elimination would be like a 20% raise for the working class in general. In addition to family incomes going up, other anti-sexist struggles could win free day-care, paid maternity/paternity leave, and so on which would improve the lives of all workers.

There are two sides to everything: a right and a wrong one. In this case, MRM seems to apologize for views and economic sexism that help our rulers divide and conquer us.

[Soomie]

This might be a sign that you should give another serious and honest look at the feminist perspective, then.

But yeah, i'm referring to how "women's work" type jobs tend to be lower paying and less secure.

I had hoped you were kidding, but I don't think you are. I'm not sure how many actual economic classes you have taken, but this is pretty self explanatory even for me when I discuss economics with my Capitalist Economics major boyfriend. Why does a janitor get paid less than a doctor? Is this not one of the reasons that we all on this forum decided to become Communists? Because we don't agree with the fact that some people get paid more or less than others based on what job they do? There are demand principles that go along with certain industries. So why would a teacher get paid less than an engineer? For one, it's more of a risk free job. Secondly, it requires less education. Thirdly, women will make certain choices later down the road, such as whether or not they will have children and take time off from work. This cuts into their salary. But this video can explain it better than I can, and hey, some of us are visual learners and need things in layman terms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

It's not a matter of labour market discrimination, but the difference in choices that men and women make OVERALL. Now, is the fair or right? No, but Capitalism.
[/QUOTE]

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

It's not a matter of labour market discrimination, but the difference in choices that men and women make OVERALL. Now, is the fair or right? No, but Capitalism.
[/QUOTE]

have you ever considered that patriarchy is inherent in all social institutions, including the family, and that men and women are conditioned into certain gender roles which largely inform the outcome of their socio-economic positions, rendering 'choice' quite redundant as a factor when it comes to this?

this has changed, yes, and that is largely thanks to feminism, but patriarchal societies, by their nature, condition gender roles and this conditioning mostly precedes the choices that individuals make. society is a structure and human relations are systemic, as are their choices. there is human agency, but only within the limits of society, culture and all of the divisions that exist within it.

[#FF0000]

words

You used the word "redpill" in earnest and think neckbearded troglodyes on reddit and 4chan have anything worth saying. And here you are trying to condescend to me.

[#FF0000]

It's not a matter of labour market discrimination, but the difference in choices that men and women make OVERALL. Now, is the fair or right? No, but Capitalism. Women are often relegated to these kinds of jobs, though, and they're often very difficult and underpaid. Is nursing not an incredibly difficult and underpaid profession? Is it not also a traditional "women's work" job? This isn't janitors to doctors here, dude. What about waitressing? They get paid, what, 2.15/hr for a wage? For what they do? Why are female-dominated "pink-collar" service sector jobs so underpaid in comparison to jobs that aren't considered "pink-collar" or "women's work" jobs in the service industry?

And it exists within other businesses too. I already brought up the example at my warehouse, where women who do the (much more difficult and tedious) work in Finishing and Induction get paid less than forklift operators and the people who work in shipping (which in a lot of warehouses, I've found, is much lighter work than one would expect, and certainly preferable to Finishing).

And that's without touching women in salaried positions, who are passed over for promotions and raises, or promoted to jobs that are "dead ends".

There is more going on here than "individual choice". That's well and good as an explanation when we're talking about small groups of people, but when we're talking about a stark segregation of labor across gender lines, "individual choice" doesn't tell the whole story.

[MarxArchist]

Dr. Warren Farrell

I'm aware of the 'beating a dead horse aspect' here but Mr Farrrell here seems to have had a bad taste left in his mouth from the second wave. Honestly, personally, I don't care much for the upper managment pay gap arguments because most low paying service sector jobs (the majority of jobs in America) both women and men are paid peanuts and the focus has shifted to petty bourgeois corporate management type positions and I find it hard to sympathize with "the glass ceiling". What I do pay attention to is lower paying jobs where people are struggling just to survive. Jobs that would make or break a woman's ability to be independent of a man. A lot of the existing pay gap in these jobs has to do with marriage and or children which simply backs up the argument that women are punished for their ability to give birth. Some of it, in "lower class" labor jobs such as the one I work, has to do with labor intensive jobs, for various reasons, not being appealing to most women. Non union construction jobs are heading towards piece work, as in, you get paid for what you produce. In that scenario there's no slacking, no blending in, no discrimination- the worker is super exploited in a sort of neo Taylorism. If I install 10 doors in one day at 10 dollars per door I get paid 100 dollars. Same for sq footage of flooring, flat pay for kitchen cabinets depending on the size etc and so on. I got a degree in literature and ended up in construction - do college educated women have this option if they can't find employment in their field? What about non college educated women? In the "blue collar" work force just about the best paying jobs are in the trades. Women have been excluded from these jobs.


In America the overall pay gap in annual income (not taking into consideration a man and woman working the same job) is about 40,000 male 35,000 female. 5 to 8 thousand dollar difference on average.

Women without college education aren't going into the trades as men are partly because of traditional gender roles, partly because men in the trades will make women feel "less than", weak, not able to preform the job etc so they end up in receptionist jobs, customer service, child care etc. (not to mention most people don't want burly "manly men" type men in child care anyhow- again, gender roles). Jobs that pay less than physically demanding labor jobs. Why aren't there more women on high rise buildings walking on exposed iron frames, welding beams, bending, lifting, stooping all day for years on end till the body gives out? Probably because, in "lower class" culture women have almost accepted that they need dual income to survive, as in, dependence on a relationship with a person who makes a living wage in order to survive. This dependence is usually solidified with the introduction of children into the mix. Add the traditional women wear pink and are nurturing and men wear blue and are tough, durable and strong we then have the sort of employment segregation that leads to an overall pay gap.

[MarxArchist]

Soomie-

I live in California, frequent motels because of travel for work. In the motels why are all the people who clean the rooms women and all the people who are staying in the motels for work men? Construction trucks fill the parking lots. Labor/trade jobs require a lot of travel these days because of competition to get a scarce amount of contracts. Why can't these women who are maids, women who are getting paid (probably minimum wage) join us in our fancy trucks with our power tools and tool belts in order to make 25 to 30 dollars an hour? This isn't to mention the pimps I see at these motels, big strong men in luxury cars 'escorting' various women into dimly lit motel rooms. I don't have problems with prostitution per say, only when pimps are involved and or any other coercive tactics are employed. I can't prove the pimping I've seen at various motels is coercive but it sure as heck looks suspect to me, to say the least. Any and all pimping in my opinion is usually coercive/exploitative.


edit-

There are other aspects of the pay gap where women and men work the same exact job but for some reason the women is paid less. This isn't universal of course, nothing is, not racism, not sexism, not anything but there is, in reality, jobs where women/men work the same exact job and women are paid less (usually in the corporate world). I personally think sexism exists in this regard, not exactly as rampant as it had traditionally been but that's specifically the result of women's struggle (feminism). It's not like it's at a point where the 'troops' pack up and go home. Declare victory and forget about the past, present and future.

Anyway, what sort of communist are you, what 'tendency', how long have you been a communist and at the very least can you not admit violence against women is a problem (if you refuse to acknowledge economic discrimination)? Is all well on the home front in America, no, on earth for women? In the case of rape culture why do you think the school tried to cover up the rape of a young girl?

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

[RedAnarchist]

the red pill and started researching the MRM.

Is this a reference to the deeply misogynistic Reddit subforum The Red Pill?

[Comrade #138672]

Actually, I believe that some men suffer under patriarchy as well, although this is much, much less than what women have to endure. Men who don't act "manly" (according to their gender role) enough, are looked down upon. But why this is still sexist towards women is revealed by these men essentially being called lesser "women" ("don't forget your purse", "you are having your period", and similar offensive nonsense).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is there something wrong with being a Communist, and being anti-feminist and an MRA?
Abso-fucking-lutely. MRAs are reactionary as fuck, and communists shouldn't be reactionary as fuck.

If you have a problem with bourgeois feminism, that's one thing, but a problem with any kind of feminisn and an orientation toward MRA? Just no.


But I will not stand by and have feminism tell me that just because I am a woman that I am oppressed
How does this sound from a worker: "I won't stand around and have communism tell me that just because I am a worker that I am oppressed."


And yet I feel that feminism is one of the most bigoted and sexist ideologies that I have come across.
Really? More biogted than right-wing MRAs? Okay, maybe radfems are pretty bad, but even they're not that bad.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is this a reference to the deeply misogynistic Reddit subforum The Red Pill?
I read it as a Matrix reference. Basically, she's saying MRAs are objective reality and feminism is false illusion.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Actually, I believe that some men suffer under patriarchy as well, although this is much, much less than what women have to endure. Men who don't act "manly" (according to their gender role) enough, are looked down upon. But why this is still sexist towards women is revealed by these men essentially being called lesser "women" ("don't forget your purse", "you are having your period", and similar offensive nonsense).

Exactly, and this ties in closely with modern sexism and homophobia.

Feminists have been against gender-roles since their advent.

[Sotionov]

Of if against some forms of feminism, one could just call oneself anti-sexist.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

How is Men Rights Activisim any different from, say, White Power?

[Decolonize The Left]

How is Men Rights Activisim any different from, say, White Power?

It isn't really, at least, not in the big picture.

In both situations a privileged group is feeling the threat of losing their privilege. And so, instead of accepting this phenomenon as fundamentally beneficial to them in the long run, they react by declaring themselves oppressed. They are looking at the situation without context, that is to say that they are looking at it from only their perspective where their privilege is being taken from them and so they are losing power in that sense - but only when you ignore the context of the privilege in the first place.

I think the OP is misguided in that she is refusing to acknowledge the privilege of males within society. Because once you acknowledge that this privilege exists, you either support it (patriarchy) or you don't (feminism). As leftists we support the liberation of the working class which necessarily involves the liberation of all peoples from their respective yolks.

[Slippers]

At the OP -

I'm not interested in any sort of "revolution" that is not explicitly feminist. I'm not interested in any sort of "revolution" than perpetuates the oppression of any disenfranchised group.

If you call yourself a "Communist" but do not support the liberation of oppressed peoples, then I'm going to say you're a shitty "Communist", or rather, not one at all.

[#FF0000]

I read it as a Matrix reference.

it's a thing MRA dorks say to describe the moment when someone becomes an insufferable cretin.

i wish op would come back.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I had hoped you were kidding, but I don't think you are. I'm not sure how many actual economic classes you have taken, but this is pretty self explanatory even for me when I discuss economics with my Capitalist Economics major boyfriend. Why does a janitor get paid less than a doctor? Is this not one of the reasons that we all on this forum decided to become Communists? Because we don't agree with the fact that some people get paid more or less than others based on what job they do? There are demand principles that go along with certain industries. So why would a teacher get paid less than an engineer? For one, it's more of a risk free job. Secondly, it requires less education. Thirdly, women will make certain choices later down the road, such as whether or not they will have children and take time off from work. This cuts into their salary. But this video can explain it better than I can, and hey, some of us are visual learners and need things in layman terms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

It's not a matter of labour market discrimination, but the difference in choices that men and women make OVERALL. Now, is the fair or right? No, but Capitalism.


For starters, though it's a bit beside the point, I'd like to respond specifically to the suggestion that being a teacher is less risky than being an engineer. Maybe you went to a nice suburban high school, or maybe you're just idealizing, but I think this is definitively not the case. I know many more teachers who've been kicked, punched, bear-maced, had their cars smashed, etc. than I do engineers who have experienced anything near equivalent sitting in their goddamn air-conditioned offices trading misogynist jokes with their iron-ringed frat-buddies. Fuck engineers.

Anyway, moving on to the topic at hand, I think you've internalized some wacky economic ideas from your capitalist boyfriend, because arguments like, "It's more dangerous" (then how come cabbies make less than bankers?), "It takes more education" (which explains why professional athletes are underpaid?) are all, taken alone, on the surface demonstrably false, and even taken together fail to account for most, let alone all, pay disparities. Consider, in particular, unpaid domestic labour, performed disproportionately by women. Or the textile and clothing industries - again, mostly women (and children), and disproportionately racialized.

The fact of the matter is that wages reflect the conditions of class struggle, and the systemic and systematic devaluation of women's labour is a real dynamic of class struggle.

For a more in depth look at the historical dispossession of women at the dawn of capital, I highly recommend Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch: Women, The Body and Primitive Accumulation (http://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici) (available from Kersplebedeb, or online in its entirety at the link).

[Crux]

Everyone seems to be encased in one mind set, so there's really no point in debating it. I feel that I tried to open up a thread to a debate from both sides, but people have come in with one mind set and have gone about it critically. If you believe that the patriarchy is alive and well, then nothing I can say here will change your mind. But I think that to *truly* understand something, one must look at both sides of the issue with an open mind. Otherwise, how could you really understand it? I reject western feminism, because *I* personally don't think that it merits attention. Now, female oppression in other parts of the world is a different matter entirely, but it's also difficult to address because it becomes a cultural relativist issue. This is *my* opinion. That doesn't make it wrong, and that doesn't make it right. It's just the conclusion that *I* have come to after researching both sides. I have looked at both feminism, and the MRM, and after doing so I chose to lean more towards the MRM. However, I feel that the people here have not done that. I see the same issue with traditional economists. A marxian economist is well versed in economics from the traditional side of things, and from the marxian side of things which he or she has had to teach himself or herself. I have had marxian economists tell me that they can't sit on a panel and have a discussion with a traditional economist, because the traditional economists haven't taken the time to sit down and understand both sides of the equation and don't know what they're talking about. They focus on one side of things and miss the overall picture. And I feel that that is what is happening here. It's great to be passionate about something and to stick to the thing that makes us comfortable, but sometimes it is necessary to go out of our comfort zone to see things for what they really are.
You made assertions, they were countered and now people are "encased in one mindset". Interesting. And no the far-right MRM is not on one side and the concept of feminism on the other. So, no I've never pretended that they hold equal weight either in significance or content of argument. The MRM is pretty much by definition a reactionary movement, a little fringe group of a greater right wing assault on women's rights. The basic assumption of the MRM is that men as a group are oppressed by women and specifically feminists. How you square this right wing ideology with supposedly being a marxist baffles me. Let's take the numerous assumptions made by the MRM that men are discriminated in the workforce based on their gender, not only is it factually incorrect, it's completely divorced from any kind of marxist analysis of the labour market. Which is why the link you put up is from a libertarian thinktank.

[helot]

Actually, I believe that some men suffer under patriarchy as well, although this is much, much less than what women have to endure. Men who don't act "manly" (according to their gender role) enough, are looked down upon. But why this is still sexist towards women is revealed by these men essentially being called lesser "women" ("don't forget your purse", "you are having your period", and similar offensive nonsense).

I don't know if you can actually quantify whether men or women suffer more under patriarchy because the suffering differs to such a huge extent. I consider it incomparable.




Using your example of men not living upto the gender role i think this ties brilliantly with the OP. There are legitimate issues which uniquely affect men and these issues need to be solved but of course there is a fundamental distinction between men's issues and MRM. MRM would seek to shift blame towards women and women's attempts to liberate themselves from patriarchy either in whole or in parts. This actually undermines men and issues that uniquely affect men because these issues themselves are a result of patriarchy.


I'd like to expand on your example though as i fear that it could be taken as fairly unimplortant. Men are expected to 'soldier on' quietly through difficulties. Trying to seek comfort and help from others renders you weak and 'like a woman' under patriarchy. What this results in is men undergoing serious problems having no where to turn to and thus a hugely disproportionate rate of suicide among men.

[#FF0000]

I'd like to expand on your example though as i fear that it could be taken as fairly unimplortant. Men are expected to 'soldier on' quietly through difficulties. Trying to seek comfort and help from others renders you weak and 'like a woman' under patriarchy. What this results in is men undergoing serious problems having no where to turn to and thus a hugely disproportionate rate of suicide among men.

Maybe I'm being nitpicky but women attempt suicide more than men do -- men just succeed more. Men tend to use immediately lethal means like guns, hanging, carbon monoxide, while women tend to use pills.

That is nitpicky -- but you're totally right about dominant conceptions of masculinity.

[helot]

Maybe I'm being nitpicky but women attempt suicide more than men do -- men just succeed more. Men tend to use immediately lethal means like guns, hanging, carbon monoxide, while women tend to use pills.

That is nitpicky -- but you're totally right about dominant conceptions of masculinity.

Really? It's been a while since i read anything on the topic maybe my memory isn't as good as i thought.

Cheers for the correction :)

[Ace High]

I agree with OP, modern feminism is about female supremacy, not equality. If nobody can see that, then I guess people aren't very observant or are just in denial.

The ONLY good thing about feminism these days is their rejection of gender roles and their recognition of the fluidity of gender and sexual identity. Other than that, feminism is the most ridiculous thing ever. Although it is not as ridiculous as "mens' rights". I feel stupid even typing the words mens' rights.

My point is, there should NOT ever be a movement exclusively biased towards one gender. That in of itself is sexism. I am all for womens' rights in Islamist or Christian controlled territories because the religious bigots love patriarchy. But as for on a social basis in places like Western Europe and the US, I don't think feminists have any business doing what they do.

[Crux]

Also, everyone here seems to be highly against the Men's Rights Movement, and I just want to make sure that it's not because people have the wrong idea about it (which is what I feel at this point). So, could someone tell me what is so bad about it?
I know I've already pretty much said how I feel about the "Men's Rights Movement", but here's a pretty good source (http://manboobz.com/) for the endless stream of awful that is the MRM.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I agree with OP, modern feminism is about female supremacy, not equality. If nobody can see that, then I guess people aren't very observant or are just in denial.

Ah, this brilliant observation based on your participation in feminist organizing and struggle? :rolleyes:
Having actually worked in various feminist organizations, and alongside feminists in a variety of struggles, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


The ONLY good thing about feminism these days is their rejection of gender roles and their recognition of the fluidity of gender and sexual identity. Other than that, feminism is the most ridiculous thing ever. Although it is not as ridiculous as "mens' rights". I feel stupid even typing the words mens' rights. If the "only good thing" you can think of theoretical, it speaks to a wild estrangement from irl struggle. That you can see how transparently reactionary "mens' rights" is, it would follow that you have to perform some elaborate theoretical gymnastics to denounce "feminism" (and as though it's a single coherent body of thought and practice).


My point is, there should NOT ever be a movement exclusively biased towards one gender. That in of itself is sexism. I am all for womens' rights in Islamist or Christian controlled territories because the religious bigots love patriarchy. But as for on a social basis in places like Western Europe and the US, I don't think feminists have any business doing what they do.Yeah, you evidently have a real handle on what "they do", as well as a real understanding of the relationship between sex, gender, and capital in the imperial metropole. Next thing you know, my girlfriend will want to take away my wages for domestic and reproductive labour.

[Ace High]

Ah, this brilliant observation based on your participation in feminist organizing and struggle? :rolleyes:
Having actually worked in various feminist organizations, and alongside feminists in a variety of struggles, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

If the "only good thing" you can think of theoretical, it speaks to a wild estrangement from irl struggle. That you can see how transparently reactionary "mens' rights" is, it would follow that you have to perform some elaborate theoretical gymnastics to denounce "feminism" (and as though it's a single coherent body of thought and practice).

Yeah, you evidently have a real handle on what "they do", as well as a real understanding of the relationship between sex, gender, and capital in the imperial metropole. Next thing you know, my girlfriend will want to take away my wages for domestic and reproductive labour.

Fine, fair enough. Please, do tell what this group is accomplishing? Do tell us how it is at all relevant to leftist goals? I don't understand why other people on the left are obsessed with feminism. Yes, women are oppressed in many countries. But their demonstrations are taking place here, they have NO effect in the countries where women are actually oppressed. So they come off as a bunch of angry women who seem to hate men. Sure, that is not what they really might be about, but that is certainly the image they portray. Just because they have enlightened views on gender roles and sexuality doesn't give them the right to behave like hateful sexist animals.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Just because they have enlightened views on gender roles and sexuality doesn't give them the right to behave like hateful sexist animals.

Sorry, what? I don't think you understand what sexism (ie polite liberal-speak for heteropatriarchy) is. Has the entrenched feminist power-structure moved to abolish your reproductive freedom? Are you scared of walking places at night because of the ubiquity of misandrist harassment? Are you bitter because you've been pushed out of organizing spaces by pushy women who won't let you get a word in edgewise? Sick of sexualized violence by the police directed against men? Tired of women who put on a dishonest front of befriending you just so they can fuck you and put another notch on their belt? Sick of being expected to do such a disproportionate amount of shit-work for no compensation? Of being the go-to emotional punching bag for all of your friends who feel like they can't be emotionally open with women?

Yeah man, I feel you. That fucking feminist sexism is really holding me down too.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Fine, fair enough. Please, do tell what this group is accomplishing? Do tell us how it is at all relevant to leftist goals? I don't understand why other people on the left are obsessed with feminism. Yes, women are oppressed in many countries. But their demonstrations are taking place here, they have NO effect in the countries where women are actually oppressed.

Women are not free from oppression in any country or region of the globe. In every presently existing state abortion and contraception is not free and available, domestic labour is not properly compensated, women are systematically underremunerated and underemployed, and any woman that violates patriarchal norms is liable to getting violently assaulted, raped and killed, and you claim that this oppression does not exist? Think before you type!

[Ace High]

Women are not free from oppression in any country or region of the globe. In every presently existing state abortion and contraception is not free and available, domestic labour is not properly compensated, women are systematically underremunerated and underemployed, and any woman that violates patriarchal norms is liable to getting violently assaulted, raped and killed, and you claim that this oppression does not exist? Think before you type!

In the United States, if a woman punches a male in the face, she is justified for whatever reason. The reason doesn't matter. If a male hits the woman back, even in self defensed, he is shamed, demonized, must never show his face in public again.

Let's see, who is socially expected to pay on dates, males or females?

Alot of domestic violence in the United States is inflicted onto men by women. However, most of that goes unreported because of social expectations. The cases that are reported usually are shrugged off by the police because "it's just a woman hitting a man who cares".

But does that make me go all mens rights? No, on the contrary I deeply oppose the mens rights movement. Yet feminists are somehow seen on these great liberators. If you want to get anything done then OPPOSE INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY AND OPPRESSIVE PARTRIARCHAL GOVERNMENTS. Don't run around complaining about how men are evil in a society where women are equal to men. Did you know that women are starting to have more professional jobs out of college than men? Please, do think before YOU type.

[#FF0000]

In the United States, if a woman punches a male in the face, she is justified for whatever reason. The reason doesn't matter. If a male hits the woman back, even in self defensed, he is shamed, demonized, must never show his face in public again.

Women aren't exempt from assault charges, bruh-bruh. And self-defense is all about proportional retaliation. No reason to go all out with a closed fist if someone's slapping or shoving on you.


Let's see, who is socially expected to pay on dates, males or females?


It's whoever asks whoever out, and splitting checks is hella common.


Alot of domestic violence in the United States is inflicted onto men by women. However, most of that goes unreported because of social expectations. The cases that are reported usually are shrugged off by the police because "it's just a woman hitting a man who cares".


That's because of patriarchal gender roles you dope.


Yet feminists are somehow seen on these great liberators. If you want to get anything done then OPPOSE INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY AND OPPRESSIVE PARTRIARCHAL GOVERNMENTS. Don't run around complaining about how men are evil in a society where women are equal to men.

The American government is oppressive and patriarchal, though. And oppression doesn't just come from laws and governments. De jure sexism is cultural, structural, and institutional, just like any other sort of bigotry is.


Did you know that women are starting to have more professional jobs out of college than men? Please, do think before YOU type.

I want to see a source for this because "professional jobs" can mean virtually anything. At the same time, gender discrimination is a well-documented fact (I linked a study that suggested as much in this thread) on the parts of employers, and women simply don't have access to the same resources men do.

Now, don't get defensive or anything, but I want you to honestly answer this question to yourself: have you ever read any feminist text whatsoever? Have you ever listened to a feminist talk about their viewpoint, in their own words? Have you ever made an attempt to understand where feminists are coming from? There are criticisms to be made of feminism and feminist movements, but if you don't know anything about what they're about, then you have no basis to criticize, do you?

I don't want you to sit here and say "I'M WRONG SORRY EVERYBODY I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT". Just be honest with yourself and address your areas of ignorance if you find that you have any (and you certainly do -- we both do)

[Luís Henrique]

I am referring to radical feminists

"Radical feminists" are not radical at all, are hardly feminists, and what is more important, are not the majority or the most important or the most active in the movement.

MRM on the other hand aren't really better, being mostly whiners that either complain about inexistent things or misunderstand real and legitimate problems that are caused by patriarchy as somehow caused by feminism, or by what they call feminism.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

I think it's extremely lazy and maybe a little dishonest to equate radical feminists with MRAs but I'll expand on this when I'm back from work.

[Luís Henrique]

The Pay Gap "Myth"
It has been debunked. Do men make more than women? Absolutely. But it makes statistical sense. If a man makes more than a woman, it is often because of the choices he has made, such as "working more hours, taking fewer days off, working overtime, doing risky jobs, etc." Women are more likely to major in things like education, or nursing, so of course the wage gap is going to show up. But when you compare a woman who has majored and works in something such as engineering or medicine to a man who has done the same, the man and the woman make the same amount, and in fact, the woman sometimes makes more. Now, in a Communist society, everyone would be "paid" (I use this loosely since there would be no money) the same amount regardless of job, but we're talking about Feminism in a Capitalist world.

Oh, please. "The choices he has made" amount to his ability to work more, take fewer days off, work overtime, etc., because it is assumed that domestic chores pertain to women. "Women are more likely to major in things like education or nursing" because those "things" correspond to the prevailing stereotypes about (or perhaps one should say "against") women. And, of course, those professions pay less because they are "feminine" labour (indeed, when a given field is taken by women, wages in it almost automatically fall). But even within the same field such as engineering or medicine, men are regularly paid more than women.

So, sorry, if this a beef you have with feminism, you are just plainly wrong. The feminists are right, there still is a wage gap, even when all variables are controlled; and some of the variables that partially explain the overall gap are directly linked to patriarchy.

Luís Henrique

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

In the United States, if a woman punches a male in the face, she is justified for whatever reason. The reason doesn't matter. If a male hits the woman back, even in self defensed, he is shamed, demonized, must never show his face in public again.

Dude, seriously, that's an extremely common sexist narrative, that doesn't hold up to even cursory examination. There are seriously states where, like, 40% of women inmates are in prison because they've been charged with assault or murder for defending themselves from abusive partners (see Andrea Smith, Conquest - unfortunately, I don't have the book in front of me to cite the page number).
While thankfully it's no longer socially acceptable, usually, for a man to beat the shit out of his partner, this doesn't mean that male violence doesn't persist, if often in more subtle forms (for example, with the tacit support of the "liberal" state).


Yet feminists are somehow seen on these great liberators. If you want to get anything done then OPPOSE INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY AND OPPRESSIVE PARTRIARCHAL GOVERNMENTS. Don't run around complaining about how men are evil in a society where women are equal to men. Did you know that women are starting to have more professional jobs out of college than men? Please, do think before YOU type.

Augh. The imperialist narrative of "those patriarchal governments over there" is such bullshit, rooted in "Oh, those backwards brown men sure are evil!" But, hey, sexism intersects with racism, should that be a surprise?

Anyway, I have yet to meet a serious feminist organizer who would assert that men are evil, but you demonstrate rather well that many men are still patriarchal assholes who oppose women's liberation.

From a communist point of view, given that the world's working class is increasingly composed disproportionately of racialized third-world women, this is particularly despicable.

[Luís Henrique]

The Disposable Male
Feminism doesn't address this.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminism-and-the-disposable-male/

Why I support what the MRM is fighting for:

*Reproductive Rights: It's a sticky situation, but men have nearly none. MRAs are fighting for a male birth control and it is under research and testing.

*Divorce: Let's be honest, it favors women.

*Domestic Violence where men are the victim: It is ignored and under reported

*Health of men: Shorter lifespans and male specific diseases that are rarely addressed or taken seriously by the public at large (prostate cancer vs breast cancer)

*Military conscription

There is a price to pay to become masters. I don't think it is possible to be efficient as a slave owner, for instance, without being physically brutalised as a child. Otherwise you won't be able to properly use the whip.

Most of the things you list here are of such a nature. Men are cannon fodder, no doubt. And this is brutal and horrible. But it is impossible for us to collectively be the "providers" and "protectors" if we aren't in the front lines. We can't have it both ways, we cannot eat the cake and keep it, we cannot expect women to comply with their subordinate role in society if we don't accept the risks and problems that come with our dominant role. That's why "divorce favours women": it has to, unless we were willing to revert roles and play the caretakers. Socially, men prefer to pay rather than babysitting. We cannot expect women to take care of our children if the economic burden of such care is also on them. The same goes for domestic violence against men: I am sure that it exists, and that it is underreported, and that men who suffer it are usually ridiculed and have their masculinity belittled. But this is not a problem of feminism, or of lack of "men's rights"; it is a problem with patriarchy, with the roles that it assigns for men and women, and frail men that are physically or psychologically abused by women are seen as "incompetent" men that don't know how to assert their dominance. Again it is the price some of us have to pay for the maintenance of gender predominance over women.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I agree with OP, modern feminism is about female supremacy, not equality. If nobody can see that, then I guess people aren't very observant or are just in denial.

Yeah, and North Korea is a feudal society, and anyone who doesn't agree with that is insane.

Please remind me, what rock exactly did you tell us you are living under?

Luís Henrique

[Vanilla]

Let's see, who is socially expected to pay on dates, males or females?


This stuck out to me from the rest of your post because I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove. Men being "expected" to pay on dates constitutes systematic oppression against men? There are a lot of problems with that, firstly that people split bills all the time. Secondly, men paying for women on dates is part of patriarchal gender roles where men are expected to be the providers. Third, it isn't fair, but is it as bad as sexism women face all the time, sexism that feminists fight against?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In the United States, if a woman punches a male in the face, she is justified for whatever reason. The reason doesn't matter. If a male hits the woman back, even in self defensed, he is shamed, demonized, must never show his face in public again.

It's not as if there have been sickening public outpours of sympathy for rapists and abusive partners, right? Except that such things happen regularly. The recent Steubenville case is a good example. Meanwhile, women who try to defend themselves against abusive partners can end up imprisoned, like Marissa Alexander.


Let's see, who is socially expected to pay on dates, males or females?

You might as well say that the bourgeoisie are oppressed because they sometimes pay higher taxes and are expected to provide charity. Besides, splitting the bill is becoming increasingly common, even as the wages of women lag behind the wages men receive.


Alot of domestic violence in the United States is inflicted onto men by women. However, most of that goes unreported because of social expectations. The cases that are reported usually are shrugged off by the police because "it's just a woman hitting a man who cares".

Except when they get 20 years in prison for firing a gun in self-defense.


But does that make me go all mens rights? No, on the contrary I deeply oppose the mens rights movement. Yet feminists are somehow seen on these great liberators. If you want to get anything done then OPPOSE INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY AND OPPRESSIVE PARTRIARCHAL GOVERNMENTS.

That's what feminists do.


Don't run around complaining about how men are evil in a society where women are equal to men.

You literally haven't addressed anything I have written, which demonstrates that women are not equal to men, in any society.

[Ace High]

Wow, ok, sweet, people actually responded to my posts. I will literally respond to each and every one of you individually, starting from the most recent, it will just take a second. But FIRST, read this statement.

I am not saying that there is no rape culture, no misogynistic idiots in the United States, no patriarchal nonsense. Of course there is. I oppose all patriarchal idiots who try to put women into a submissive gender role. But Feminism today is NOT about equality. I know someone PERSONALLY, a woman, by the way, who HATES modern day feminism. But she LOVES feminism in the past because it had a clear goal of equality and not supremacy. How do people not see this? Creating a group specific to women is divisive. Just as I recognize black people must be liberated that does not mean I support black-only racial-based groups. Understand? Feminism only serves to divide humanity.

Now, I shall answer all your questions, just be patient. And remember, I am on your side, I want to destroy patriarchal culture as much as you do. I just don't go around forming groups with a gender-based membership is all :P

[Ace High]

Women aren't exempt from assault charges, bruh-bruh. And self-defense is all about proportional retaliation. No reason to go all out with a closed fist if someone's slapping or shoving on you.



It's whoever asks whoever out, and splitting checks is hella common.



That's because of patriarchal gender roles you dope.



The American government is oppressive and patriarchal, though. And oppression doesn't just come from laws and governments. De jure sexism is cultural, structural, and institutional, just like any other sort of bigotry is.



I want to see a source for this because "professional jobs" can mean virtually anything. At the same time, gender discrimination is a well-documented fact (I linked a study that suggested as much in this thread) on the parts of employers, and women simply don't have access to the same resources men do.

Now, don't get defensive or anything, but I want you to honestly answer this question to yourself: have you ever read any feminist text whatsoever? Have you ever listened to a feminist talk about their viewpoint, in their own words? Have you ever made an attempt to understand where feminists are coming from? There are criticisms to be made of feminism and feminist movements, but if you don't know anything about what they're about, then you have no basis to criticize, do you?

I don't want you to sit here and say "I'M WRONG SORRY EVERYBODY I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT". Just be honest with yourself and address your areas of ignorance if you find that you have any (and you certainly do -- we both do)

Have I listened to feminists talk about their viewpoints in their own words? Yes, I have. In fact, I agree with many of their statements. I know a girl living in France who writes some great stuff about gender roles and patriarchal society and sexism. It is all great stuff. My problem is, by labeling yourself a feminist, you automatically associate yourself with a wide group of people, some of whom, really do hate men. I think you are misunderstanding my point.

By the way, I admit I have not read texts from modern day feminists other than directly from people who label themselves feminists. Texts from the past do not count because there was a valid argument for the feminist movement decades ago. But the word "feminism" in of itself is an ironic term, right? Feminists (as do I) hate gender roles. But the term "feminism" implies a particular gender role, doesn't it?

But I will admit I have not read books or anything from contemporary modern day feminists, and I am ready to admit ignorance. Do you have any good recommendations? Maybe a link describing current feminist goals? Because I am just quite skeptical of a group that hates gender roles, yet uses a gender-specific term to describe themselves.

[Ace High]

Dude, seriously, that's an extremely common sexist narrative, that doesn't hold up to even cursory examination. There are seriously states where, like, 40% of women inmates are in prison because they've been charged with assault or murder for defending themselves from abusive partners (see Andrea Smith, Conquest - unfortunately, I don't have the book in front of me to cite the page number).
While thankfully it's no longer socially acceptable, usually, for a man to beat the shit out of his partner, this doesn't mean that male violence doesn't persist, if often in more subtle forms (for example, with the tacit support of the "liberal" state).



Augh. The imperialist narrative of "those patriarchal governments over there" is such bullshit, rooted in "Oh, those backwards brown men sure are evil!" But, hey, sexism intersects with racism, should that be a surprise?

Anyway, I have yet to meet a serious feminist organizer who would assert that men are evil, but you demonstrate rather well that many men are still patriarchal assholes who oppose women's liberation.

From a communist point of view, given that the world's working class is increasingly composed disproportionately of racialized third-world women, this is particularly despicable.

Really, dude? You seriously think I hold those ignorant views, saying "those evil brown men are bad and our white culture is great." If you seriously think I hold those views, I would go back and read literally any one of my posts on this forum. But something tells me you were being sarcastic.

I specifically attacked those countries because the United States does not have a state religion (even though many think Christianity is the de facto state religion). Many other countries do. Women are oppressed in those countries beyond any woman in the United States wildest imagination. It is almost insulting the lack of attention given to womens' struggles in countries under Islamist and Christian control. Sure, the US is under control of Christians but it is not in a militant form where women must by law, be oppressed. Yes, let's change our culture here in the US to get rid of patriarchy. But I think that is a bit less concerning than some of the real problems facing women.

[Ace High]

This stuck out to me from the rest of your post because I don't quite understand what you're trying to prove. Men being "expected" to pay on dates constitutes systematic oppression against men? There are a lot of problems with that, firstly that people split bills all the time. Secondly, men paying for women on dates is part of patriarchal gender roles where men are expected to be the providers. Third, it isn't fair, but is it as bad as sexism women face all the time, sexism that feminists fight against?

Nope and you fell for my trap perfectly. I was saying that because socially men really are expected to pay based on stupid patriarchal constructs and the whole masculine vs feminine thing. Yet men are obviously not oppressed at all. Just because society expects this does not mean men are oppressed. I dislike mens rights groups alot more than I dislike feminist groups, I know that is hard to hear.

[Ace High]

It's not as if there have been sickening public outpours of sympathy for rapists and abusive partners, right? Except that such things happen regularly. The recent Steubenville case is a good example. Meanwhile, women who try to defend themselves against abusive partners can end up imprisoned, like Marissa Alexander.



You might as well say that the bourgeoisie are oppressed because they sometimes pay higher taxes and are expected to provide charity. Besides, splitting the bill is becoming increasingly common, even as the wages of women lag behind the wages men receive.



Except when they get 20 years in prison for firing a gun in self-defense.



That's what feminists do.



You literally haven't addressed anything I have written, which demonstrates that women are not equal to men, in any society.

Ok, so splitting the bill is becoming way more common. Awesome! guess what? The submission of women also is less common, in fact, not very common at all in the United States.

By the way, that woman was black, that is racism, not sexism. The law in this country is notorious for discriminating against blacks.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ok, so splitting the bill is becoming way more common. Awesome! guess what? The submission of women also is less common, in fact, not very common at all in the United States.

Again, if you want to continue the dialogue, address my actual post, which outlines how women are oppressed in the present society, and how that oppression is very common - ubiquitous in fact.

[Ace High]

Again, if you want to continue the dialogue, address my actual post, which outlines how women are oppressed in the present society, and how that oppression is very common - ubiquitous in fact.

I'm sorry? Have you not seen my posts? For instance, I feel rape culture seems to be your main issue of how women are oppressed in places like the States, yeah? Well you're right, rape culture is a huge problem. As Marxists, we are attempting to fix that aren't we? Why should feminists exclude men from the fight? I am trying to liberate women. Don't you understand that? But feminism is not the way to do it. You don't see how that is divisive to human beings as a whole? You don't see the irony in the word "feminism" either?

[human strike]

I'm sorry? Have you not seen my posts? For instance, I feel rape culture seems to be your main issue of how women are oppressed in places like the States, yeah? Well you're right, rape culture is a huge problem. As Marxists, we are attempting to fix that aren't we? Why should feminists exclude men from the fight? I am trying to liberate women. Don't you understand that? But feminism is not the way to do it. You don't see how that is divisive to human beings as a whole? You don't see the irony in the word "feminism" either?

I recommend reading this essay by Heidi Hartmann, The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.old.li.suu.edu%2Flibrary%2Fci rculation%2FGurung%2Fsoc2370sgUnhappyMarriageMarxi smFeminismFall10.pdf&ei=HertUaOPNuiY0AXx0oDQDg&usg=AFQjCNGY262twbBYi6e4y761tDFqk2WiuQ&bvm=bv.49478099,d.d2k). Patriarchy has an economic basis, it is not simply an ideological perspective. Gender and the oppression of women (i.e. patriarchy) is a central tenet of capitalism. One cannot overthrow capitalism without overthrowing patriarchy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm sorry? Have you not seen my posts? For instance, I feel rape culture seems to be your main issue of how women are oppressed in places like the States, yeah?

Rape and the violent oppression of victims of rape is simply part of the problem - a huge part, but a part nonetheless. Restrictions on abortion - both official and unofficial - are another. So is nonsexual violent crime, including murder, against women who deviate from heteropatriarchal norms. So is the systematic underemployment of women, and the systematic lag of women's wages compared to the wages received by men. So is, and this is the root of the problem, the bourgeois family unit and unpaid domestic labour.

And you haven't really addressed any of this.


Well you're right, rape culture is a huge problem. As Marxists, we are attempting to fix that aren't we? Why should feminists exclude men from the fight?

The simple answer is that they don't.


I am trying to liberate women. Don't you understand that? But feminism is not the way to do it. You don't see how that is divisive to human beings as a whole? You don't see the irony in the word "feminism" either?

No, I really don't. Women experience special oppression in capitalism - therefore we talk about women's liberation and feminism. Just as, due to the fact that gay people experience special oppression, we talk about gay liberation (although the liberals prefer to talk about gay rights these days - rights not requiring that the present society be violently overthrown).

[Quail]

I think it's hard to make sweeping statements about "feminism" because there are as many, if not more, different tendencies within the feminist movement as there are within the communist movement. Some feminists are reactionary and many fail to recognise the connection between patriachy and class. So the point I'm trying to make is that any general statement about "feminists" is essentially meaningless.

As other users have pointed out in this thread, even in places like the UK and within the anarchist movement, sexism still exists. It might not be quite so overt as it used to be, but there's just basic stuff like being unable to go to a night club with only female friends without being harassed by creepy men (one of the reasons I don't really like night clubs unless I'm with my partner), the incredibly damaging culture of victim blaming when women are sexually assaulted/abused, the common assumption that women are less capable than men, the way that "women's work" is undervalued, the expectation that women will take on most of the childcare, etc. To claim that women and men are equal with all of this glaringly obvious sexism is actually ridiculous.

So we've established that patriarchy hurts women. Now patriarchy also hurts men, but often the ways in which patriarchy hurts men are directly related to the belief that women are inferior and/or naturally more caring/nurturing. For example, "men do more dangerous jobs" - not because men are seen as having less value as women, but because women aren't considered strong enough or capable enough to do those jobs. I've already explained earlier in the thread why men are less likely to get custody of children if they split from their partner.

So patriarchy hurts men as well as women although not quite to the same degree. Feminists aim to abolish gender roles and abolish patriarchy, which will benefit both men and women. Although as an anarcha-feminist I don't think it will be possible to abolish patriarchy without overthrowing capitalism, so I think we need to fight patriarchy as part of our struggle against capitalism.

[#FF0000]

My problem is, by labeling yourself a feminist, you automatically associate yourself with a wide group of people, some of whom, really do hate men. I think you are misunderstanding my point.

1) By calling yourself a socialist, you automatically associate yourself with a wide group of people, some of whom are Stalinists, some of whom are reformist social democrats.

2) Who? Who are these feminists who hate men? Specifically?

3) 2nd wave feminism cuts a lot deeper and has much more bite to it than 3rd wave liberal feminism. I think it's really, really funny that you think the latter is about "female domination" but don't go on about the 2nd wave like some others might (right or wrong).

I think it's because you don't know what you're talking about and, again, I urge you to do some actual reading about the subject, without preconcieved notion. What you're saying here isn't new or novel. It's the feminist equivalent of "communism cant work cuz human nature".


Texts from the past do not count because there was a valid argument for the feminist movement decades agoWhat was the argument? What changed?


I am trying to liberate women. Don't you understand that?But you said women aren't oppressed in America?


You don't see how that is divisive to human beings as a whole?No, because you've only ever made assertions. Show me why feminism is about "female domination". Where have feminists ever called for that? Produce something to back your claims up, here.


Creating a group specific to women is divisive. Just as I recognize black people must be liberated that does not mean I support black-only racial-based groups.

Feminism isn't specific to women. And even if there are groups that are (they do exist), then that's a matter of tactics and there's a lot of questions to ask there (like, uh, can liberation only be won by the oppressed group itself, or something like that)

[#FF0000]

Nope and you fell for my trap perfectly. I was saying that because socially men really are expected to pay based on stupid patriarchal constructs and the whole masculine vs feminine thing. Yet men are obviously not oppressed at all. Just because society expects this does not mean men are oppressed. I dislike mens rights groups alot more than I dislike feminist groups, I know that is hard to hear.

So because men aren't oppressed because they're expected to pay for dates, that means women aren't oppressed?

That's a bad trap.