Feminism.

[Comrade Njordr]

OK, I would consider myself to be a feminist. Women deserve equal rights, and in many societies this is what they lack. What I want to know is, why do many 'feminists' (self-proclaimed) excuse or ignore the wrong-doings of women who abuse and exploit men? Attacking a whole gender will not solve the issues women face, this isn't a matter of dealing with an exploitive class, but half of the bloody population.

Even if we do live in a patriarchal society, this does not give women the right to escape justice. Any injustices should be redressed.


EDIT. I do support violent action against those who seek to oppress any gender or race, though.

[Comrade Jacob]

That's just Liberal-feminism. Marxist-Feminism understands true equality can only come through the over-throw of capitalism.

[Comrade Njordr]

That's just Liberal-feminism. Marxist-Feminism understands true equality can only come through the over-throw of capitalism.
But aren't many on the radical left guilty of this too?

[Zoop]

Your whole understanding of feminism seems to stem from what anti-feminists have told you what feminists stand for, rather than actual feminists telling you what it stands for.

Many feminists don't "excuse or ignore the wrong-doings of women who abuse and exploit men." This is a myth, peddled by MRAs and their ilk.

In fact, the ridicule men face for being abused by women, is a result of the patriarchal gender roles that are enforced. Men are expected to be dominant, so it follows that if they are not, they are belittled.

Also this: "Attacking a whole gender will not solve the issues women face", is a straw man. Nobody is attacking a "whole gender". They are attacking the societal power imbalance which exists in society - a power imbalance that is patriarchal in nature. This power imbalance, on the whole, expects women to be subjugated to the whims of men, and this manifests itself in many different ways.

[BIXX]

I support misandric action- fuck "justice".

[Comrade Jacob]

But aren't many on the radical left guilty of this too?

Some do, yes. Liberalism is a disease.

[BIXX]

Also, seeing as you so obviously know where to find the man hating feminism I am looking for OP, where do I find it?

[RedWorker]

Women deserve equal rights, and in many societies this is what they lack. What I want to know is, why do many feminists excuse or ignore the wrong-doings of women who abuse and exploit men?

If a man is domestically abused by a woman, and he reports it to the police, the police will laugh at him because "men are strong, women are weak, so he must be a little pussy". In fact, sexism and gender roles may prevent him from even reporting it. So actually for feminists destroying this kind of sexism which has its base in anti-women structures and which causes these side effects against men is a key goal. Of course, not for pseudo-feminists who in many cases fail to understand this in the first place.

People in RevLeft are not the best examples of feminists and in many cases fail to give an accurate picture.

[Comrade Jacob]

If a man is abused by a woman, and he reports it to the police, the police will laugh at him because "men are strong, women are weak so he must be a little pussy". In fact, sexism and gender roles may prevent him from even reporting it. So actually for feminists destroying this kind of sexism which causes these side effects against men is a key goal. Of course, not for pseudo-feminists who in many cases fail to understand this in the first place.

You put it wonderfully. Feminism benefits everyone.

[#FF0000]

What I want to know is, why do many feminists excuse or ignore the wrong-doings of women who abuse and exploit men? Attacking a whole gender will not solve the issues women face, this isn't a matter of dealing with an exploitive class, but half of the bloody population.

Can you give me an example of what you're talking about?


That's just Liberal-feminism

What? I don't like Liberal Feminism either but it's not fair nor is it accurate to say that they "excuse or ignore the wrong-doings of women". Liberal isn't just a slur for people whose politics you don't like.

[Comrade Jacob]

They are fake feminists, they are such a small fringe group that I've never come in contact with.

[Comrade Njordr]

Also, seeing as you so obviously know where to find the man hating feminism I am looking for OP, where do I find it?

Well, it isn't feminism then is it? But there are a few people who hate men and call themselves feminists.

[#FF0000]

Well, it isn't feminism then is it? But there are a few people who hate men and call themselves feminists.

Like I say every time someone says this -- I've been involved with the radical milieu for about a decade or more now, through college and everything, and I think it's really weird that I never once met a "man-hating feminist".

It's almost as if it's something people try to bring up to avoid talking about actual issues, or something. Hm.

[Comrade Njordr]

Like I say every time someone says this -- I've been involved with the radical milieu for about a decade or more now, through college and everything, and I think it's really weird that I never once met a "man-hating feminist".

It's almost as if it's something people try to bring up to avoid talking about actual issues, or something. Hm.

So what you're saying is that there are no man-haters who claim to be feminists? These people (who do exist) are just as bad as the MRA's.

[#FF0000]

So what you're saying is that there are no man-haters who claim to be feminists?

I'm saying that women with a pathological hatred of men are almost non-existent, yeah. I can only think of one person who that describes, and that might be Valerie Solanas.

So why do people talk about this so much when it comes to feminism?

[Comrade Njordr]

I'm saying that women with a pathological hatred of men are almost non-existent, yeah. I can only think of one person who that describes, and that might be Valerie Solanas.

So why do people talk about this so much when it comes to feminism?
Because they want to derail it maybe? The fact is, man-haters receive the spotlight more than real feminists. That is what confused me, the media covers the wrong group of people (even if they are a minority).
When the media decides to present feminists as a man-hating group, feminism's real meaning is lost.

[ChangeAndChance]

So what you're saying is that there are no man-haters who claim to be feminists? These people (who do exist) are just as bad as the MRA's.

How do you jump from him saying "I never met any" to "there are none"? That's just a blatant misconstruction of what he said.

Yes, there are some women who hate all men and say they are feminists. The fact of the matter is they are in the extreme minority and despite being vocal about their irrational beliefs, they are not taken seriously by most in the feminist community.

This is not the same for MRAs. Misogyny and trivialization of women's systemic and cultural oppression is the norm for them. They are and always will be a reactionary position against the social progress that feminism stands for.

Fuck the media and its pundits, we need grassroots action to counteract the vast perception that we're evil scum that want to institute a matriarchy.

[Comrade Njordr]

I guess I just misunderstood :(.
It doesn't matter if they are laughed at in the feminist community if they are taken seriously outside of it.

[#FF0000]

Because they want to derail it maybe? The fact is, man-haters receive the spotlight more than real feminists. That is what confused me, the media covers the wrong group of people (even if they are a minority).
When the media decides to present feminists as a man-hating group, feminism's real meaning is lost.

I agree about the detailing bit, but here's the thing: no one is ever actually able to name a "man-hating" feminist. People make this distinction between "good feminists" and these shadowy, unnameable "man-hating feminists", without ever being able to say who these man-hating feminists are.

[Comrade Njordr]

I agree about the detailing bit, but here's the thing: no one is ever actually able to name a "man-hating" feminist. People make this distinction between "good feminists" and these shadowy, unnameable "man-hating feminists", without ever being able to say who these man-hating feminists are.
I thought there were plenty of tumblr blogs belonging to man-haters. I don't use tumblr so I may be wrong.

[#FF0000]

I thought there were plenty of tumblr blogs belonging to man-haters. I don't use tumblr so I may be wrong.

People always point to tumblr but you're talking about (mostly) kids who are trying to make sense of complicated new ideas and ways of thinking. I don't think it's fair to say that's the face of contemporary feminism.

[Comrade Njordr]

People always point to tumblr but you're talking about (mostly) kids who are trying to make sense of complicated new ideas and ways of thinking. I don't think it's fair to say that's the face of contemporary feminism.
It may not be fair to say that, but its what people think it is. How are feminists going to change the peoples view on feminism?

[Counterculturalist]

I agree about the detailing bit, but here's the thing: no one is ever actually able to name a "man-hating" feminist. People make this distinction between "good feminists" and these shadowy, unnameable "man-hating feminists", without ever being able to say who these man-hating feminists are.

Some men, when first confronted with the existence of patriarchy and misogyny, consider any struggle against it as a personal attack.

As a result, the existence of feminism is itself taken to be proof of "man-hating," unfortunately.

[#FF0000]

It may not be fair to say that, but its what people think it is.

Except I don't think it's even a fair assessment of kids on tumblr think or say. My point is that the "man-hating feminist" is an anti-feminist bogeyman with no serious basis in reality.


How are feminists going to change the peoples view on feminism?

I don't really know but I think the tide might be moving on this anyway. Feminists have always been maligned the way they are by some today (it's interesting how little anti-feminist language and talking points have changed over the 20th century) but I think people are more eager to call themselves feminists than they were even ten or twenty years ago.

[BIXX]

It may not be fair to say that, but its what people think it is. How are feminists going to change the peoples view on feminism?

It isn't a feminist's job to change men's view of feminism- its up to men to not suck.

[RedWorker]

It isn't a feminist's job to change men's view of feminism- its up to men to not suck.

I don't see the point of gendering such statements. It's not feminist at all to do so, and it doesn't make you look cool. All it does is alienate people. There is a large amount of conservative women who have an extremely reactionary stance to feminism, and in many cases constantly engage in sexism - whether they do this because they are themselves victims of it is a different discussion.

It is also nonsense that feminists do not need to explain what feminism actually is and promote is. Any advocacy requires such a thing. Of course, this does not mean appealing to sexists, nor needing to deal with every strawman they come up with or their constant misrepresentations.

[BIXX]

I don't see the point of gendering such statements. It's not feminist at all to do so, and it doesn't make you look cool. All it does is alienate people. There is a large amount of conservative women who have an extremely reactionary stance to feminism, and in many cases constantly engage in sexism - whether they do this because they are themselves victims of it is a different discussion.
I can safely say that any conservative woman who says fuck feminism can fuck right off. Its like all the shit bill Cosby says about black communities- fuck him honestly. They just perpetuate racism and sexism.

But to your shitty point about "gendering the issue". The issue is inherently gendered from the beginning anyway- the massive majority of people you meet in daily life are men.

Boo fucking hoo about some white dudes being alienated.


It is also nonsense that feminists do not need to explain what feminism actually is and promote is. Any advocacy requires such a thing. Of course, this does not mean appealing to sexists, nor needing to deal with every strawman they come up with or their constant misrepresentations.

This is why I don't support advocacy.

And of course it means appealing to sexists, people who aren't a sexists won't suck and thus won't need to be appealed to.

[The Disillusionist]

Jesus Christ.... this is the third thread like this I've seen in the past week. Stop it already, people who are posting these threads.

[RedWorker]

the massive majority of people you meet in daily life are men.

Are we speaking about Counter-Strike or real life? Because you can install custom female skins on the former. Probably won't work on VAC servers tho.


Boo fucking hoo about some white dudes being alienated.

Why should men be turned away from feminism?


This is why I don't support advocacy.

Yes, you aren't exactly the number one revolutionary or politician.

[BIXX]

Are we speaking about Counter-Strike or real life? Because you can install custom female skins on the former. Probably won't work on VAC servers tho.
sry, meant people who shit on feminism.


Why should men be turned away from feminism?
If they're already sexist I feel no need to do any 'educating'.


Yes, you aren't exactly the number one revolutionary or politician.
Good- revolutionaries and politicians are bullshit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's helpful to view feminism as being linked to political issues, I think. For instance, the early women's suffrage movement, or equal pay for equal work, or the equalization of domestic labor, etc. When you do this it helps dispel the notion that feminism is an amorphous credo about the inherent nature of men and women (although that is part of some schools of feminism and it seems to be the popular notion today of what feminism is, unfortunately)

"Feminism" as a term doesn't mean much in-and-of itself...really it just reflects a socio-political outlook that focuses on women's issues. There have been plenty of feminists with despicable beliefs (for example: some of the race-baiting done by the early suffragette movement and Elizabeth Cady Stanton's very racist statements) and there have also been feminists with revolutionary beliefs that have been ahead of their time, like Emma Goldman or Victoria Woodhull.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's helpful to view feminism as being linked to political issues, I think. For instance, the early women's suffrage movement, or equal pay for equal work, or the equalization of domestic labor, etc. When you do this it helps dispel the notion that feminism is an amorphous credo about the inherent nature of men and women (although that is part of some schools of feminism and it seems to be the popular notion today of what feminism is, unfortunately)

"Feminism" as a term doesn't mean much in-and-of itself...really it just reflects a socio-political outlook that focuses on women's issues. There have been plenty of feminists with despicable beliefs (for example: some of the race-baiting done by the early suffragette movement and Elizabeth Cady Stanton's very racist statements) and there have also been feminists with revolutionary beliefs that have been ahead of their time, like Emma Goldman or Victoria Woodhull.

The thing is, it is possible to focus on women's issues without identifying as a feminist. Emma Goldman did - so did Clara Zetkin etc. I think that if we identify women's liberation with feminism, as many people do unfortunately, we can't really make sense of the history of the socialist movement. E.g. Clara Fraser calling herself a Marxist feminist would be redundant - but her position actually represented a new development in both Marxist and feminist thought (one that I obviously disagree with, being a sympathiser of a group she outright hated, but that position can't simply be ignored). And this conflation of women's liberation with feminism often means that anything a feminist (that can't be dismissed as a liberal feminist) says gets an automatic pass as people don't want to be seen as opposing women's liberation.

And yeah, actual feminists have had quite a few dodgy positions, from racism to homophobia to alliances with conservatives to pass anti-gay laws that, surprise surprise, disproportionately target gay people. But animosity toward men is not one of them. If I were to be ironic I would say that some people should man up.

As for tumblr kids, though, it seems to me they're slowly taking over the asylum. I think the recent "enthusiastic consent" movement, for example, can only have been thought up by someone who has not been in a stable relationship for long.

[Armchair Partisan]

Why should men be turned away from feminism?

Yes, you aren't exactly the number one revolutionary or politician.

Not advocating feminism to non-feminists, not trying to turn non-feminists to our cause (or non-revolutionary workers to communism) is not just hilariously ineffective, it makes it literally impossible for us to win. After all, tomorrow's revolutionaries are - by necessity - today's reactionaries: most workers are reactionary right now, but they're all that the revolutionary movement has to work with.

On the other hand, let us remember Placenta Cream's stance on the issue:


Who even cares if [defeating capitalism is] possible? I just want to enjoy myself in revolt... if something comes of it, great.

Suddenly their stance makes sense. If it doesn't matter to you whether what you're doing has any point, why would you frustrate yourself trying to convince people who disagree with you? If you don't care at all, of course there's no reason to make any kind of effort!:rolleyes:


If they're already sexist I feel no need to do any 'educating'.

And you, PC, could explain this to me. What does this even mean? Maths teachers don't teach other mathematics professors and researchers; they teach kids who don't yet know maths. That's the whole fucking point of education. Otherwise, you're just preaching to the choir.

[Comrade Jacob]

We need to just make a clear distinction between Marxist-feminists and liberal-feminists.

[BIXX]

And you, PC, could explain this to me. What does this even mean? Maths teachers don't teach other mathematics professors and researchers; they teach kids who don't yet know maths. That's the whole fucking point of education. Otherwise, you're just preaching to the choir.

Because I don't think being told they're wrong, even in a very clear and well thought out argument, will work. The only thing that will work is real, lived experiences that move them away from bigoted positions. Your position will just lead to more stupid fucking protests to "raise awareness"- like, either everyone is aware of the issue or they are actively part of the problem. Their circumstances need to move them away from their shit viewpoints.

That doesn't mean don't try, that just means that the way in which we try isn't based in traditional leftist preaching. Workers only became radicals once they were in an obvious situation of massive tension between capital and themselves. The preaching did little to help- I think people are more useful when in a mode of constant attack, making the tensions raise all the time.

[PhoenixAsh]

Except that Capitalism =/= Patriarchy. And consciousness only derives from knowledge and understanding about the situation pertaining to ones own situation....not only through experience.

In capitalism workers are being exploited...in Patriarchy men are the exploiting party.

Just how do you suggest MEN experience what sexism is and does on a level pertaining to women in a Patriarchal society?

And about leftist peachyness. ..It is not that I disagree...but I don't think your position of "leftist bullying" which you appear to take on the matter here and in other threads... is a more valid approach.

[RedWorker]

How is sexism similar to capitalism?

The relationship of the worker to the capitalist is a direct relation of exploitation... the relationship of man to woman is not. It simply makes no sense to analyse it in that way, because patriarchy is no mode of production.

I would also say that sexists and not men in general are the oppressors.

That said, I believe that all men in general experience their lives in a way much different from women. They simply do not experience sexism, and as a result their whole outlook is different. A man has to learn about sexism, a woman simply experiences it. This is why I believe that though a man can be a feminist militant in the same way a woman is, men should not be pretend to lead feminism, just like you wouldn't put a capitalist in a leading position of a communist party - even though capitalists can be communists.

[Rosa Partizan]

reading this thread gave me an incurable brain disease. On the other hand, why would I care, typical feminism thread by leftist guys. We have to be aware of the fact that even though capitalism and patriarchy appear to be inseparable, they actually aren't. Female subordination and male supremacy existed before capitalism conquered the world. Capitalism was and still is an important factor when it comes to institutionalizing and spreading patriarchy, you could name it patriarchy's mightiest tool. However, we would objectify women even without capitalism's omnipresence, we just couldn't do it so structurally and vehemently. Like, prostitution existed before capitalism existed, but back when there was no capitalism, you didn't have "all you can fuck"-brothels with dumping prices.

Also, I don't feel responsible for catering to men's feelings, like I have to convince them that I don't hate them when in fact of course I do hate them as the oppressive class, which doesn't change the fact that I can feel differently for individual men (especially because of being heterosexual). The difference between me hating men and men hating me is that there is no foundation for me turning this hate into something acceptable, something that is favored by societal structures and institutions. Moreover, feminism is not for everybody. Feminism is women's liberation from patriarchal violence and oppression. Clearly, men (as a class) won't be especially fond of this. Even the guys beeing very "feminine" won't appreciate this because their given status as oppressors still holds a ton of privileges. So why would I try to convince men that I actually like them and that I don't pose a threat for them when the system that upholds them as ruling class defines my life in every aspect?

[Armchair Partisan]

Because I don't think being told they're wrong, even in a very clear and well thought out argument, will work. The only thing that will work is real, lived experiences that move them away from bigoted positions. Your position will just lead to more stupid fucking protests to "raise awareness"- like, either everyone is aware of the issue or they are actively part of the problem. Their circumstances need to move them away from their shit viewpoints.

That doesn't mean don't try, that just means that the way in which we try isn't based in traditional leftist preaching. Workers only became radicals once they were in an obvious situation of massive tension between capital and themselves. The preaching did little to help- I think people are more useful when in a mode of constant attack, making the tensions raise all the time.

That actually makes a lot more sense than I thought it would, but I don't think that education is useless. A lot of misconceptions about feminism can be dispelled with just a few concise arguments and fact-checks. That won't turn everyone, but it can help with a lot of reasonable but ignorant people.


Also, I don't feel responsible for catering to men's feelings, like I have to convince them that I don't hate them when in fact of course I do hate them as the oppressive class, which doesn't change the fact that I can feel differently for individual men (especially because of being heterosexual). The difference between me hating men and men hating me is that there is no foundation for me turning this hate into something acceptable, something that is favored by societal structures and institutions. Moreover, feminism is not for everybody. Feminism is women's liberation from patriarchal violence and oppression. Clearly, men (as a class) won't be especially fond of this. Even the guys beeing very "feminine" won't appreciate this because their given status as oppressors still holds a ton of privileges. So why would I try to convince men that I actually like them and that I don't pose a threat for them when the system that upholds them as ruling class defines my life in every aspect?

Woah here, let's chill for a moment. Men are not a class. Neither are women. They are genders. Now, you say you hate men as a class. That's an interesting way of putting it - I don't 'hate' capitalists as a class, I just want them gone - but I guess I can understand why you chose the words. But a class is defined by its common class interests. Is it in the interest of men to oppress women? Maybe, if we live in a vacuum where capitalism, socialism etc. don't exist at all and gender is the only factor in your social standing. That is not real life, however. In real life, oppressing women is not a common class interest of men. Maintaining a patriarchal system is perhaps in the class interest of the capitalists, but not because of their genders. Human societies are not built based on gender discrimination - gender discrimination is used to reinforce human (class) societies.

I was under the impression that the reason the communist movement embraces feminism is because erasing gender-based discrimination is a precondition towards establishing the class society. Therefore, you are not supposed to be convincing men that you don't want to harm them (this is a strawman), but that their interests lie with feminism and the revolutionary movement that embraces it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Men are a class within Patriarchy. They are not a class in the traditional Marxist sense. But the male group in its entirety in a generalist sense benefits from the repression over women and in its position to "authority" and per extent and as a result you can even make the argument that they are so in relation to the means of production as both one of the means with which women are repressend and as a result of men holding a privileged position.

This does not mean all men benefit or benefit equally...or that men are even aware or conscious of what the actual benefits are in respect/comparison to women...

Rosa and I wil disagree on a whole lot of issues wen it comes to patriarchy, intersectionality, kyriarchy and how it all plays out....but when she says men are a class...she isn't wrong when you consider it on an abstract level.

And while these days feminism/communism/anarchism are (theoretically) married....this was not a lays so apparent and is in fact hard fought and is still being hard fought within the movement.

I won't put money on a succesfull revolution automatically creating a gender equality society....at all. Simply too many men dominate the organization's and movements leadership positions and too many men in the movements perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes.

[soup]

I won't put money on a succesfull revolution automatically creating a gender equality society....at all. Simply too many men dominate the organization's and movements leadership positions and too many men in the movements perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes.What does this mean?

Isn't gender equality a necessary condition for a socialist society? When private property is abolished, ownership over the MoP are owned in common democratically for the good of the community, etc what would be the material basis for men to repress women? Women would have just as much material power as the male counterparts, wouldn't they?

I don't think you can bring up the USSR and Cuba as examples of patriarchy existing in a socialist society either because neither were/are socialist.

[PhoenixAsh]

OK, I would consider myself to be a feminist. Women deserve equal rights, and in many societies this is what they lack.

I get what you are saying. Two things.

1). They don't deserve equal rights...rights is a limiting term here and suggests that it is not an intrinsic value...they deserve to be seen and treated completely equal on all levels even on those levels that have nothing to do with "rights".

2). In all societies this is what they lack. There is not one society that is free from repression of women.


What I want to know is, why do many 'feminists' (self-proclaimed) excuse or ignore the wrong-doings of women who abuse and exploit men?

Are they? And does it have impact beyond an individual level? And does it have the same inpact/frequency as those acts by men?

I don't think this statement can be made without explaining and giving examples.



Attacking a whole gender will not solve the issues women face, this isn't a matter of dealing with an exploitive class, but half of the bloody population.

...That structurally creates a repressive and deadly environment for the other half based on gender.



Even if we do live in a patriarchal society, this does not give women the right to escape justice. Any injustices should be redressed.

Why not? Men do it all the time.

In fact the concept and idea of justice within a Patriarchal / Capitalist society is a tainted concept in its very nature.

I would counter pose that women are in fact punished harder, more severe than men for the same transgressions. I would also like to counter argue that even when they are the victim they are still treated as suspects in a whole lot of cases...



EDIT. I do support violent action against those who seek to oppress any gender or race, though.

Yes. Although I certainly won't argue in favor of it and don't want to become a target of it....self interest and because...well...who would?

edit: To clarify and further specify...I have no issue with women taking violent action against politicians and institutions that advocate repression of women. I also don't have a problem of individual women or groups of women taking violent action against abusers, rapists.

I would have somewhat of a problem with somebody walking into a shopping mall and simply shooting people of a.specific gender.

[Invader Zim]

I'm saying that women with a pathological hatred of men are almost non-existent, yeah. I can only think of one person who that describes, and that might be Valerie Solanas.

So why do people talk about this so much when it comes to feminism?

I once dated a woman who never introduced any of her partners to her mother, because her mother hates and fears men. There are also those fringe groups of feminists who bang on about all 'PIV' (lulwut) being rape, etc.

[Comrade Njordr]

What about the people who complain about video games and say that staring is rape? It's fucking pathetic.

[Comrade Njordr]

Jesus Christ.... this is the third thread like this I've seen in the past week. Stop it already, people who are posting these threads.
If it bugs you then you can piss off out of the thread then. Why whinge about something you could easily ignore, it isn't going to fucking kill you is it?

[RedWorker]

On the other hand, why would I care, typical feminism thread by leftist guys.

Typical nonsense from you. Why does someone's gender/sex have to be referenced when making arguments? (which doesn't mean it's invalid to state how a man simply can't have the same outlook on sexism/feminism as a woman because he doesn't experience it) How do you know who here is male/identifies as a man?

I do agree with criticizing how some 'leftists' fail to live up to standards of gender or sex equality. But statements like this? Plain nonsense. And especially because it seems to be addressing several people who have gave perfectly reasonable arguments - not just the OP.


We have to be aware of the fact that even though capitalism and patriarchy appear to be inseparable, they actually aren't. Female subordination and male supremacy existed before capitalism conquered the world.

That is possible. But is there any evidence that it existed before the dawn of class society?


Like, prostitution existed before capitalism existed, but back when there was no capitalism, you didn't have "all you can fuck"-brothels with dumping prices.

Well, here's a perfect example. Prostitution can only exist in class society. That doesn't mean it hasn't existed before capitalism.


Also, I don't feel responsible for catering to men's feelings

Who here has said that "men's feelings" should be catered to or that feminists should put up with what entitled men have to say about it? It simply has been said that feminism should be promoted to everyone, including men.


like I have to convince them that I don't hate them when in fact of course I do hate them as the oppressive class which doesn't change the fact that I can feel differently for individual men (especially because of being heterosexual).

"Hating men as a class". Does this actually mean anything? Does a communist "hate capitalists as a class"? Why is this entirely meaningless, nonsense talk have to be even engaged with, and treated as if it was relevant?

I don't care at all about whether anyone hates men or not on whatever level - it's just that these are look-cool statements rather than anything purposeful and it's starting to pollute talk about feminism. By the way: should heterosexuals be "hated as a class" by homosexual people for being 'the oppressor'?


The difference between me hating men and men hating me is that there is no foundation for me turning this hate into something acceptable, something that is favored by societal structures and institutions.

The difference is that you don't hate men at all - you simply engage into this irrelevant, meaningless rhetoric. You distinguish "hating men" from "hating men as a class" defining the first as actual, emotional hate of men, whereas the latter is merely standing against their interests in patriarchy from a theoretical point of view. So you define that to mean the same as feminism, but then you bring "hate" as an useless rhetorical point. This has nothing to do with feminism - it only has to do with how you attempt to portray yourself.


So why would I try to convince men that I actually like them and that I don't pose a threat for them when the system that upholds them as ruling class defines my life in every aspect?

You don't, and nobody stated this. It was simply said that feminism should attempt to promote itself and its aims to everyone. Why is a distinction about men - and not about sexists - even being made?

[#FF0000]

What about the people who complain about video games and say that staring is rape? It's fucking pathetic.

I dunno man I think one can critique video games from a feminist perspective. What's "extreme" about that?

And who says staring is rape? Is this another thing people tell you that feminists say?

[PhoenixAsh]

The video game thing:

what? Just..don't get it.

The staring thing:

yeah...some people claim that stating at a woman's body is "raping them with your eyes"...it isn't always meant litterally....just that ogling is pretty freaking invasive....especially when it is done to pay excessive attention somebodies body in a sexual manner.

[RedWorker]

What about the people who complain about video games and say that staring is rape? It's fucking pathetic.

Video games typically are made primarily by men because of sexism in the industry (as with general IT things), and they typically portray women in sexist ways. That should be complained about. It has nothing to do with 'being against video games' in general.

Staring isn't rape, but staring cannot be simply understood as an individual phenomenon. One person staring at the other purely for sexual attraction, and in the context of a vacuum, is irrelevant. What is relevant is men staring at women in the context of sexism, male entitlement and gender notions about women being "collectively enjoyed" by men.

You may be a woman and men may routinely look for 3 minutes straight in your sexual parts... you're a man and the same thing doesn't happen. This fact has little to do with actual differences in sexual attraction (not in that it is not a motivation but rather in that it does not account in the difference between gender/sexes), it rather has to do with how women and men are understood in society. And clothing is a motivation behind the behaviour but 1) that doesn't change the analysis of the phenomena, 2) women shouldn't have to conform to certain dress standards in order to have basic rights.

See this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0uQInTECI4) and this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A) for a good example of what it means when staring is talked about.

[Invader Zim]

What about the people who complain about video games

Well, there is nothing wrong with critiquing games from a gender or feminist perspective. First, it is interesting to understand why games tend to utilise the narratives and archetypes that they do. Second, if that understanding results in better story telling in games and serves to make various types of gaming more inclusive and enjoyable then great.


and say that staring is rape? It's fucking pathetic.

Well, staring is not rape. It certainly can be both intimidating, objectifying and intrusive - but rape it is not. Who has made such a claim?

[RedWorker]

I won't put money on a succesfull revolution automatically creating a gender equality society....at all. Simply too many men dominate the organization's and movements leadership positions and too many men in the movements perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes.

A revolution is not the leaders of leftist organizations taking over. So arguments on this level make no sense, because it simply has been claimed that the elimination of class society will drastically restrain/eliminate sexism. Therefore any arguments about this must be on a theoretical level about to what extent such social and economic parameters affect sexism - not about the well-known men in leftist parties who later don't live up to gender/sexual equality standards.

[Comrade Njordr]

I dunno man I think one can critique video games from a feminist perspective. What's "extreme" about that?

And who says staring is rape? Is this another thing people tell you that feminists say?
The people below just answered your question, yes they do say that. And I don't see how staring is invasive, if it makes you uneasy then confront them.

[Armchair Partisan]

The people below just answered your question, yes they do say that. And I don't see how staring is invasive, if it makes you uneasy then confront them.

If a woman confronted everyone who was creepily staring at her on a street, there wouldn't be much left of the day at the end.

[Comrade Njordr]

What about pissing on public transport, or 'freebleeding'? Its disgusting. They also moan about 'manspreading' which isn't meant to be sexual in any way, its just for comfort.

[Comrade Njordr]

If a woman confronted everyone who was creepily staring at her on a street, there wouldn't be much left of the day at the end.
Then get over it, they're not molesting you are they?

[Armchair Partisan]

What about pissing on public transport, or 'freebleeding'? Its disgusting.

That's not what freebleeding is. Do you even biology?

(For that matter, the whole 'freebleeding' movement was mostly a 4chan hoax. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/free-bleeding))


Then get over it, they're not molesting you are they?

Thank you, no more questions.

[Comrade Njordr]

Ugh, this is why people don't like 'feminists'. If you really care about equality then stop focusing on trivial shit and do something productive. You're all embarrassments.

[BIXX]

Except that Capitalism =/= Patriarchy. And consciousness only derives from knowledge and understanding about the situation pertaining to ones own situation....not only through experience.
I'm not talking about consciousness here. I'm talking about a real hatred of the existent.


In capitalism workers are being exploited...in Patriarchy men are the exploiting party.

Just how do you suggest MEN experience what sexism is and does on a level pertaining to women in a Patriarchal society?
I expect them to be able to care for the women who are in their lives who are hurt by patriarchy. If that isn't enough then obviously they shouldn't be given the time of day.


And about leftist peachyness. ..It is not that I disagree...but I don't think your position of "leftist bullying" which you appear to take on the matter here and in other threads... is a more valid approach.
I'm not really interested in "valid approaches" so much as carving out free spaces (assuming you mean that I think hurting sexists and racists etc... is 100% acceptable and desirable).

[Counterculturalist]

Ugh, this is why people don't like 'feminists'. If you really care about equality then stop focusing on trivial shit and do something productive. You're all embarrassments.

Yes, I'm sure women will be thrilled to learn that their concerns are "trivial shit." This will free up time to spend on truly important, productive things, like criticizing straw-feminists on a message board.

[Armchair Partisan]

Ugh, this is why people don't like 'feminists'. If you really care about equality then stop focusing on trivial shit and do something productive. You're all embarrassments.

Can you please tell us more about what are the most relevant issues the feminist movement needs to tackle today? Feminists all over the world are sure to appreciate your input.

[Comrade Njordr]

Yes, I'm sure women will be thrilled to learn that their concerns are "trivial shit." This will free up time to spend on truly important, productive things, like criticizing straw-feminists on a message board.
Well I'd like to think that dealing with female genital mutilation and such should be a higher priority than being critical of video games. I don't see many feminists taking action.

[Comrade Njordr]

Can you please tell us more about what are the most relevant issues the feminist movement needs to tackle today? Feminists all over the world are sure to appreciate your input.
I don't know, perhaps issues where real women are victims of physical abuse. Genital mutilation, underage pregnancies (and marriages) and so on.

[Armchair Partisan]

I don't know, perhaps issues where real women are victims of physical abuse. Genital mutilation, underage pregnancies (and marriages) and so on.

I see. Do you currently advocate for a communist revolution in developed countries, such as Canada?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Typical RevLeft thread on feminism... "I'm more feminist than you!" "No, I'm more feminist than you!" "Shut up, I'm more feminist than both and have the long-winded rhetoric to prove it!" "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?" Get a grip, people. As socialists we should understand that women's issues are structural issues and that no amount of lifestylist "safe spaces" is going to help the vast majority of women, and that you can be the most special snowflake who doesn't educate the oppressors and doesn't afraid of anything, that won't help women one bit.


I don't know, perhaps issues where real women are victims of physical abuse. Genital mutilation, underage pregnancies (and marriages) and so on.

Yes, the physical abuse, economic inequality of women etc. are all much more pressing issues than Miley Cyrus twerking or whatever cultural critics get upset about these days.

So why aren't we talking about that instead of "feminists want to let women bleed"? I think feminism can be criticised in terms of its effectiveness, or lack of effectivenes, when it comes to women's liberation. But you aren't doing that.

[Comrade Njordr]

I see. Do you currently advocate for a communist revolution in developed countries, such as Canada?
Everywhere. But that's not the point, I care more about women who face physical and mental trauma rather than someone who doesn't. Domestic abuse should be the highest priority in developed countries.

[Armchair Partisan]

Everywhere. But that's not the point, I care more about women who face physical and mental trauma than someone who doesn't. Domestic abuse should be the highest priority in developed countries.

So do you think it's impossible to focus on more significant and less significant issues at the same time? Do you think that mentioning how video game heroines have such big breasts that they couldn't possibly stand upright is going to make the domestic abuse problem worse?

Fortunately for the feminist movement, it seems women are apparently better at multitasking. (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24645100) :p

(Warning: the science above might be completely bogus, I haven't bothered to research that)

[Comrade Njordr]

So do you think it's impossible to focus on more significant and less significant issues at the same time? Do you think that mentioning how video game heroines have such big breasts that they couldn't possibly stand upright is going to make the domestic abuse problem worse?

Fortunately for the feminist movement, it seems women are apparently better at multitasking. (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24645100) :p

(Warning: the science above might be completely bogus, I haven't bothered to research that)
Haha I wouldn't mind as much if that were true, but too many of them dedicate all of their time to these things rather than the important issues.

[Invader Zim]

Men are a class within Patriarchy. They are not a class in the traditional Marxist sense. ...

I know that you carefuly qualify the points you're making by noting that you are talking about a generalist 'sense' and as an abstraction, but I still don't really see the utility in trying to think of patriarchy constructing what is, in effect, a two tier class structure. Neither men nor women are a 'class' in any cogent sense, and utilising terms like 'class' to frame the discussion of patriarchy serves only, I think, to confuse. The Marxist analysis of class holds value precisely because it is built on material reality, and not in a 'generalist sense'. It does not easily (if at all, though points about stratum within these classes do have some value) allow for exception; your relationship to the means of production is what it is. Positing gender as being a class, then we instantly run into examples to which the abstract class model offers little instruction.

It is also, as you say, far from the case that all men benefit from patriarchy and that all women suffer. In fact I would suggest that a majority of men also suffer under the phenomenon that is patriarchy. Those who do not conform to the precise social ideal of the alpha-male are poorly served by patriarchy. Not as poorly served as most women, but poorly served non-the-less.

[Mr. Piccolo]

It is also, as you say, far from the case that all men benefit from patriarchy and that all women suffer. In fact I would suggest that a majority of men also suffer under the phenomenon that is patriarchy. Those who do not conform to the precise social ideal of the alpha-male are poorly served by patriarchy.Not as poorly served as most women, but poorly served non-the-less.

I agree. A good example would be men who are suffering from depression or other mental problems, but refuse to seek treatment because they are afraid of looking weak. This is the product of patriarchy and men attempting to live up to its extreme standards. Unfortunately, many men end up never receiving help and some even commit suicide.

[RedWorker]

.

I agree - this only fuels the bullshit myth about feminists somehow viewing the men-women relationship in the same way as a communist may view the proletarian-bourgeois relationship. Not that we should adapt to sexists whining about this, but it really has little purpose to apply some form of "class analysis" to this.

[#FF0000]

What about pissing on public transport, or 'freebleeding'? Its disgusting. They also moan about 'manspreading' which isn't meant to be sexual in any way, its just for comfort.

lol "freebleeding" wasn't a real thing, dude.


Ugh, this is why people don't like 'feminists'. If you really care about equality then stop focusing on trivial shit and do something productive. You're all embarrassments.

You're sitting here talking about man-hating feminists like there's roving bands of them going around and yelling at men and taking away their toys, dude. And you have no idea what people on this board do when it comes to real-life organizing and activism.


Well I'd like to think that dealing with female genital mutilation and such should be a higher priority than being critical of video games. I don't see many feminists taking action.

Why isn't it possible to talk about both? I don't understand why they have to be mutually exclusive.


Haha I wouldn't mind as much if that were true, but too many of them dedicate all of their time to these things rather than the important issues.

You haven't been able to point to a single real-life example of what you started this thread about, yet you think you have an accurate assessment of what the feminist movement is doing and what it ought to be doing instead?

[soup]

It seems to me that one of the easiest ways for bourgeois liberalism to infiltrate the socialist movement is through liberal feminism. Don't get me wrong, as socialists we must absolutely support the liberation of women, the destruction of patriarchy, etc. In other words, we must be feminists.

However mainstream feminism is obviously overwhelming liberal. Mainstream feminist critiques of society, culture, etc are liberal. As leftists, a lot of us are naturally drawn to feminist critiques. The problem is when we don't examine these critiques from a socialist perspective, and end up bringing these inherently petit-bourgeois liberal ideas into the socialist movement. You can see this all over this forum and other leftist areas these days. It's not good.

[Comrade Njordr]

lol "freebleeding" wasn't a real thing, dude.



You're sitting here talking about man-hating feminists like there's roving bands of them going around and yelling at men and taking away their toys, dude. And you have no idea what people on this board do when it comes to real-life organizing and activism.



Why isn't it possible to talk about both? I don't understand why they have to be mutually exclusive.



You haven't been able to point to a single real-life example of what you started this thread about, yet you think you have an accurate assessment of what the feminist movement is doing and what it ought to be doing instead?
I'm not allowed to post links, just look it up.:( This is what people think feminists are, I'm not saying they're feminists.

[Zoop]

Haha I wouldn't mind as much if that were true, but too many of them dedicate all of their time to these things rather than the important issues.

Yes, because the cultural sexual objectification of women is an unimportant matter :rolleyes:

You do realise that people can concern themselves with more than one issue at a time right?

[Comrade Njordr]

Fuck it.

[#FF0000]

I'm not allowed to post links, just look it up.:( This is what people think feminists are, I'm not saying they're feminists.

Well yeah that's what people say, but they're wrong. I mean, what do you think people think of communists thanks to dorks like Maoist Rebel News, the red-brown tankies in the biggest Communist facebook groups, and all of the other profoundly foolish and embarrassing people associated with the movement?

You can't really hold feminists responsible for what people who are actively trying to misrepresent and misunderstand them say about them.

[Quail]

NjordrHrolafson - If you are genuinely interested in learning about feminism, why are you being so hostile? If you'd only stop spewing ridiculous strawmen for a moment and actually read what people have been saying to you, you might learn something.

This post is a verbal warning for being so needlessly hostile and rude in the Learning forum.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Haha is someone seriously complaining about freebleeding in here?

[PhoenixAsh]

Well you have to admit that it is pretty freaking annoying to have to wade to puddles of menstrual blood every morning when you get your groceries or go to work....

[PhoenixAsh]

A revolution is not the leaders of leftist organizations taking over. So arguments on this level make no sense, because it simply has been claimed that the elimination of class society will drastically restrain/eliminate sexism. Therefore any arguments about this must be on a theoretical level about to what extent such social and economic parameters affect sexism - not about the well-known men in leftist parties who later don't live up to gender/sexual equality standards.

Well that would be true except for vanguardism. The vast majority of revolutionary groups are vanguards in some way or another...

Aside from that the the vast majority of groups vanguard or not, perpetuate sexism and gender roles in their ranks which shows that even when people are very much aware of sexism, patriarchy they still have problems implementing it in their own social interactions. That does not bode well for the ability of class consciousness to implement a gender equal society. After all...class consciousness and knowledge and theory do not automatically lead to the abolition of gender roles.

Men taking leadership positions over women in such over representative numbers is a social and political expression.

[PhoenixAsh]

Ugh, this is why people don't like 'feminists'. If you really care about equality then stop focusing on trivial shit and do something productive. You're all embarrassments.

I don't think perpetuating gender role stereotypes and sexual objectification of women in games is trivial. Nor do I think it is trivial when that happens in any other sector...such as the music video industry.

These are expressions and perpetuation of a very real component of sexism that affect social consciousness which form the basis of sexism and the repression of women.

I have no freaking clue what you mean with public urination. What I DO know is that it is less socially acceptable for women to pee in public, there are less facilities for women to pee and that that is itself is a result of gender inequality. As well as the behavior being endlessly more common among men than with women as a result. So when people start to get up in arms and get their undies all in a bunch when suddenly women argue they should be allowed to pee in public...I find the sudden moralising and disgust more than a little bit suspicious in the face of the behavior being very common among men and didn't warrant such vitriolic reactions of disgust and moralization. Think about that for a second.

And aside from freebleeding beIng a hoax...WHY would you even care?

And man spreading...you mentioned that in another post. I won't deny you that having your legs apart is comfortable. But there is a difference between having your legs apart and having your legs apart in such a fashion that you take up more room than your actual seat. It is also something that generally is NOT accepted when women do it. Why? Because that behavior is also a display of dominance...which men generally don't like women being. So no...you don't actually have a point.

[Armchair Partisan]

And aside from freebleeding beIng a hoax...WHY would you even care?

Well, bleeding out all over the seat of a vehicle would, indeed, be very unpleasant and something to be avoided. Though I usually tend to stand on public transport anyway, if I were to sit down I wouldn't want to sit in a pool of random strangers' bodily chemicals, be that piss, shit or menstrual blood.

Far from wanting to bleed all over the place, though, real feminists (ones that aren't made out of straw, that is) do very much want access to tampons - which is why they ought to be made freely available (IIRC in the UK they are classified as luxuries). (This is one of those 'REAL ISSUES' you were talking about, NjordrHrolafson! Along with the pink tax in general.) I guess that bleeding out over some capitalist's expensive leather couch to protest the price of tampons is a reasonably effective form of direct action, but I don't think most women would find the experience pleasant in itself. Just another example of what kind of bullshit gets spread around when people don't actually talk to real women and real feminists, only those who want to caricature them.

[RedWorker]

Aside from that the the vast majority of groups vanguard or not, perpetuate sexism and gender roles in their ranks which shows that even when people are very much aware of sexism, patriarchy they still have problems implementing it in their own social interactions. That does not bode well for the ability of class consciousness to implement a gender equal society. After all...class consciousness and knowledge and theory do not automatically lead to the abolition of gender roles. .

This is not a matter of disagreement - you simply are not addressing what I said. Sure, there are some leftist parties that fail to live up to standards of gender/sex equality, as I said. But your statement was: "I won't put money on a succesfull revolution automatically creating a gender equality society....at all."

How does the fact that some leftist groups are run by men equate a successful revolution not creating a gender equal society? A successful revolution creates a classless society. So the point here is: does a classless society result in the elimination of sexism or not? If, as revolutionary parties typically argue, classless society terminates sexism, then what makes sense is exactly that the omnipresence of men in leadership happens after the revolution and its social changes (which could slowly pan out, given that all these men are already there, have experience and are trusted leaders while women will have to rise up). It makes all the sense, from the viewpoint of their argument that society is plagued with sexism, and even their own parties are, before the revolution occurs - not the opposite.

[PhoenixAsh]

Because it isn't some leftist groups....it is essentially the vast majority of leftist groups...and I only say that it is a vast majority because I don't want to exclude the possibility that there might be leftist groups that actually do succesfully enact gender equality within their ranks...

And per extent that means that I don't think a classless society will create a gender equal society. I don't think class and sexism are intrinsically linked and I think patriarchy can and will exist in the perpetuation of gender roles that are not tied in with the relationship to the means of production.

The reality that leadership positions and therefor the direction, priorities and perpetuation of intra party/group gender roles is an expression of this. Within a party where the consciousness and awareness of gender roles and their effects should be and are well known...does not actively strive to engage these inequalities existing within the party...means that there is active intent to not strive for it.

[PhoenixAsh]

And to clarify that position more clearly....I don't think that tweaking legal systems, and removing economic factors/barriers will end gender opression and the perpetuation of gender roles.....without actively engaging these gender roles. And I think men won't automatically do that after a revolution.