Feminism

[DReaver13]

I would be interested to know your thoughts on Feminism, be it the Radical variety, or the Liberal variety. I was taught about it in Sociology and it irritated me. It somehow didn't seem relevant in a contemporary context. Do you think gender inequalities are still a major problem? Or are Feminists just trying to push it further than it needed to go?

Have any of you heard of Valerie Solanas? She published something called the "SCUM Manifesto" which I have taken the time to read. I think it's absolutely disgusting and could be considered beyond Hitler in terms of madness. Read it for yourself and you'll see.

http://www.ai.mit.edu/~shivers/rants/scum.html

[Famepollution]

Valerie Solanas is my idol. She taught me that all men are inherently evil and that the y chromosome is just a mutated x chromosome so all men are just mutants.After reading the S.C.U.M. Manefesto I realised the communist manefesto was just bullshit made by the male devils.I live my life by that text. Thanks to Valerie Solanas i've decided to commit suicide and end my pathetic male ways. Long live the S.C.U.M.

:D :lol: :rolleyes:

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:15 PM
I would be interested to know your thoughts on Feminism, be it the Radical variety, or the Liberal variety. I was taught about it in Sociology and it irritated me. It somehow didn't seem relevant in a contemporary context. Do you think gender inequalities are still a major problem? Or are Feminists just trying to push it further than it needed to go?

Have any of you heard of Valerie Solanas? She published something called the "SCUM Manifesto" which I have taken the time to read. I think it's absolutely disgusting and could be considered beyond Hitler in terms of madness. Read it for yourself and you'll see.

http://www.ai.mit.edu/~shivers/rants/scum.html
wow, she's a crazy *****. sorry, I just have to say it. She really is, off the deep end. I support feminism, to a point, but not shit like this.


Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit.

uh, yea, ok.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

yea, to give poeple a general sense of the article:


Ugliness: Being totally sexual, incapable of cerebral or aesthetic responses, totally materialistic and greedy, the male, besides inflicting on the world `Great Art', has decorated his unlandscaped cities with ugly buildings (both inside and out), ugly decors, billboards, highways, cars, garbage trucks, and, most notably, his own putrid self.


SCUM will become members of the unwork force, the fuck-up force; they will get jobs of various kinds an unwork. For example, SCUM salesgirls will not charge for merchandise; SCUM telephone operators will not charge for calls; SCUM office and factory workers, in addition to fucking up their work, will secretly destroy equipment. SCUM will unwork at a job until fired, then get a new job to unwork at.

SCUM will forcibly relieve bus drivers, cab drivers and subway token sellers of their jobs and run buses and cabs and dispense free tokens to the public.

SCUM will destroy all useless and harmful objects -- cars, store windows, `Great Art', etc.

Eventually SCUM will take over the airwaves -- radio and TV networks -- by forcibly relieving of their jobs all radio and TV employees who would impede SCUM's entry into the broadcasting studios.

SCUM will couple-bust -- barge into mixed (male-female) couples, wherever they are, and bust them up.

SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM. A few examples of the men in the Men's Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUM's goals; faggots who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive; men who consistently give things away -- money, things, services; men who tell it like it is (so far not one ever has), who put women straight, who reveal the truth about themselves, who give the mindless male females correct sentences to parrot, who tell them a woman's primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd', then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present. Nice, clean-living male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex; makers and promoters of sex books and movies, etc., who are hastening the day when all that will be shown on the screen will be Suck and Fuck (males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are); drug pushers and advocates, who are hastening the dropping out of men.


It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.


Prevention of Conversation: Being completely self-centered and unable to relate to anything outside himself, the male's `conversation', when not about himself, is an impersonal droning on, removed from anything of human value. Male `intellectual conversation' is a strained compulsive attempt to impress the female.


`Great Art' and `Culture': The male `artist' attempts to solve his dilemma of not being able to live, of not being female, by constructing a highly artificial world in which the male is heroized, that is, displays female traits, and the female is reduced to highly limited, insipid subordinate roles, that is, to being male.


Sexuality: Sex is not part of a relationship: on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time. The female can easily -- far more easily than she may think -- condition away her sex drive, leaving her completely cool and cerebral and free to pursue truly worthy relationships and activities; but the male, who seems to dig women sexually and who seeks out constantly to arouse them, stimulates the highly sexed female to frenzies of lust, throwing her into a sex bag from which few women ever escape. The lecherous male excited the lustful female; he has to -- when the female transcends her body, rises above animalism, the male, whose ego consists of his cock, will disappear.


Hatred and Violence: The male is eaten up with tension, with frustration at not being female, at not being capable of ever achieving satisfaction or pleasure of any kind; eaten up with hate -- not rational hate that is directed at those who abuse or insult you -- but irrational, indiscriminate hate... hatred, at bottom, of his own worthless self.

Gratuitous violence, besides `proving' he's a `Man', serves as an outlet for his hate and, in addition -- the male being capable only of sexual responses and needing very strong stimuli to stimulate his half-dead self -- provides him with a little sexual thrill..

yup.

[Kaan]

liberal pseudo-feminism is not at all progressive, in any sort of way. By this I mean the variety of pseudo-feminism which is about being "open" about your sexuality and the whole "when a man is a whore, its okay, but when a woman does it..." shit. Liberal feminism is nothing more than women being tricked into supporting consumrism and patriarchy by glorifying being dim-witted and promiscuous. Radical feminism on the other hand I do support

[BuyOurEverything]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say Kaan. You don't support women being able to be open about their sexuality? Or being able to have the same type of sexual habits as men without being labelled a slut? Unless I'm totally mistaken, your version of 'radical' feminism sounds alot like a nunnery.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DReaver13
I would be interested to know your thoughts on Feminism, be it the Radical variety, or the Liberal variety. I was taught about it in Sociology and it irritated me.

What did you find "irritating"?

There are wackos on the fringes of every movement without exception. Did they just teach you about the wackos to discredit the whole idea?

Or were they even more subtle? Here are some "acceptable feminists" (which are ok for you to like) and here are some wackos -- which you can laugh at. Carefully unmentioned are the serious radical feminists. You're not supposed to know about them.

If you really want to begin to learn something about modern feminism, google Robin Morgan for a start. Or try one of Marge Piercy's novels -- Woman on the Edge of Time is a good first choice.

On the other hand, if it's just "uppity women" that bother you (and others), may I invite you to discuss that absorbing topic...in Opposing Ideologies?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hiero]

That Solanas lady is literal crazy.

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

[Hiero]

Genuine equality between the sexes can only be realized in the process of the socialist transformation of society as a whole. Mao Tse-Tung

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Hiero+Dec 9 2004, 06:18 PM--> (Hiero @ Dec 9 2004, 06:18 PM) That Solanas lady is literal crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas [/b]

Wikipedia
Born in New Jersey in 1936, Solanas was, by her own report, regularly sexually abused by her father. Her parents divorced during the 1940s and by the age of 15 she was homeless. In spite of this, she managed to complete high school, and a degree in psychology from the University of Maryland.

Details of her life until 1966 are sketchy, but it is believed she traveled the country as an itinerant, supporting herself by panhandling and prostitution.


Bam. That's it. Look no further for the cause of her extreme loathing of men. First, she was abused by her own father, then she went into being professionally used by men. She's not so much a feminist as someone who, lacking experience with men who don't want something from her, assumes that they all are the same. She can not be taken seriously, given her background, as she has a very biased and skewed view of men, and life in general.

Knowing that she was molested by her father and a prostitute does much to help me understand her statements in the SCUM manifesto.


Solanas reportedly considered Warhol a vampire and spray-painted her bullets silver. She tried to wrap them in foil, but it made her gun jam (which it did anyway).


After her release from prison in 1971, she was regarded by some as a martyr, yet she harassed Warhol and others over the phone, prompting the police to arrest her again. Solanas drifted into obscurity (and in and out of mental hospitals) although an interview with her was published in the Village Voice in 1977. During the 1980s it is believed she was living in California, supporting her drug addiction through prostitution. In 1988, at the age of 52, she died of emphysema and pneumonia, in a welfare hotel in San Francisco.

Um, yea. Kind of makes her hatred of men moot. You don't actually believe any shit like the scumm manifesto and then go on being a prostitute, years after writing it. The ***** was crazy.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Goddamn, some of you kids are dense! Reread the SCUM Manifesto with a sense of humour! In particular, you've got to think in terms of the meaning of "man," and what elements are purposely provocative, and which are half-serious. You may also want to dig the men's auxiliary . . .

Seriously though, any male who feels threatened/bothered/targetted by the SCUM Manifesto is just afraid that he'll have no place in tomorrow's Lesbian-Anarchist society . . . and is the sort of frightful bore who really should get dead come the revolution!


P.S. Regarding the original question . . . liberal feminism is useless - it's incorporating women into a male system! I'm a radical feminist and believe that smashing the state, capital, etc. and fixed and dogmatic notions of gender is the only base upon which a free society - for everyone reguardless of genetalia! - can exist.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 9 2004, 07:17 PM
Seriously though, any male who feels threatened/bothered/targetted by the SCUM Manifesto is just afraid that he'll have no place in tomorrow's Lesbian-Anarchist society . . . and is the sort of frightful bore who really should get dead come the revolution!
I feel in no way threatened/bothered/or targeted. The SCUM manifesto is hella old, and I, before this, had never even heard of SCUM. I really, really, really doubt, however, that males will be eliminated.

And a lesbian-anarchist society sounds really, really boring.

Whatever, I hate this sort of shit, I hate having to dance around edges in an attempt not to appear chauvunistic, And I agree, women should be equal to men, but it ain't gonna happen, until the capitalist society that forces the traditional genderal roles onto people is gone.

Plus, if you really believe that males could ever be eliminated from the human species, then you're a damn fool. Sure, maybe some scientific bullshit where the male could be cut out of the reproductive process, but males, we're not going down without a huge fight.

There are differences between males and females extending beyond mere genetalia. Men are naturally stronger. Sure, women can get strong, god knows I've seen enough muscle bound women to know that, but the average man, compared to the average woman, is stronger. Plus, regardless of whether it is "caused by our chauvanistic society," femals seem to be much less active politically than men. Half of all voters are women, in the US. If they were willing to do so, they could implement some huge changes.

In conclusion to this long ass pseduo-rant, until I see concrete evidence that politically active women are the majority, rather than a tiny few, I will not worry that women will rise up and stamp out us "inferior" men. They lack the drive to do so.

i'm probably going to be stomped for this shit, and probably labeled as chauvanistic, but I really don't care right now. I'm so, so, so tired of this sex bullshit, when it is fucking obvious that true sexual equality will only come about in a communist society!

Speaking of which, out of curiosity, how many of the members of che-lives are females?

And, one other thing: Solanas was a crazy fucking *****. the shit she is proposing in the SCUm manifesto is rivaled exclussively by Nazi trash. This fucking dirty, drug addicted prostitute should be reconized as just that, and any idiolizing of the ***** on the part of women is fucking retarded.

[/endrant]

[BuyOurEverything]

Jesus fucking christ A-C, what the fuck does her being a prostitute or a drug addict have to do wth anything? She was crazy, that's that. You don't have to look for reasons why she hated men, just dismiss it as crap. Being abused by her father didn't cause her to write the SCUM manifesto, millions of women are abused by men all the time and don't turn out like that.

VMC: I get what you're saying, but sorry I don't buy it. That entire piece of writing was crap, and I think you know it. All it does is turn people, even previously progressive people (like our friend A-C here), off to feminism as a whole. I don't care what she meant by 'men', whether she meant the male gender or the social concept of 'man'.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Anti-Capitalist
Whatever, I hate this sort of shit, I hate having to dance around edges in an attempt not to appear chauvinistic...

When you really are???


Plus, if you really believe that males could ever be eliminated from the human species, then you're a damn fool. Sure, maybe some scientific bullshit where the male could be cut out of the reproductive process, but males, we're not going down without a huge fight.

One of the funniest/saddest statements in the history of Che-Lives?

If such a thing were to happen, it would be (many) centuries in the future -- and would have no effect on you at all.

But you sound ready to defend manhood "to the bitter end" right now.

Do lesbian demons haunt your dreams?


Speaking of which, out of curiosity, how many of the members of che-lives are females?

About ten percent of the total.


This fucking dirty, drug addicted prostitute should be recognized as just that, and any idolizing of the ***** on the part of women is fucking retarded.

Compassion for the victims of class society isn't really your strong point, is it?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[nochastitybelt]

Should someone with the name "NoChastitybelt" dare to step foot in this thread?
Actually, the ex-Valkyrie, NoChasitybelt exclusively for the sweet Comrade RAF. ;)

I guess you all don't know what Valerie Solanas gained her notoriety for. Not for the SCUM Manifesto, (acronym for the Society of Cutting Up Men!) though it was big in it's time --- But for shooting and wounding the artist Andy Warhol. She was a bit deranged-- But, all in good fun!! http://www.womynkind.org/valbio.htm

Feminism will always be as long as woman as a whole who have comparable equal education to that of men, but earn considerably less for the same job positions -- until that changes above anything else woman would want for themselves in an equal society --- they will feel obligated and justified in their efforts to fight against that discrimination --- especially when there are thousands of single mothers with children to take care of and thousands of dead-beat dads not supporting them. They NEED that difference in paycheck. Should they be begrudged that?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And, one other thing: Solanas was a crazy fucking *****. the shit she is proposing in the SCUm manifesto is rivaled exclussively by Nazi trash. This fucking dirty, drug addicted prostitute should be reconized as just that, and any idiolizing of the ***** on the part of women is fucking retarded.

Wow!
I didn't even catch that part until RS brought it up.

This is very, very sexist. Anti-capitalist, you are also obviously very anti-women.

This woman is a victim of oppression. She should not be viewed as a female chauvinist, as you seem to be implying by comparing her to Nazis.

She was raped and became a prostitute. For you to use the fact that was abused sexually against her is disgusting. How dare you insult a woman for being subjugated sexually her whole life. How dare you blame her for that.

You seem to be under the impression that sexually oppressed women can somehow practice sexual oppression against men as a whole, as men have done to women as a whole, or even to the point of phasing out the male gender. This woman could have been 1000000 times more radical and she still would have been unable to fight the male power structure. Therefore, her prejudice should not be regarded as an attack against men, because it can accomplish no such blow against the male ruling class and the status quo.


I will not worry that women will rise up and stamp out us "inferior" men. They lack the drive to do so.

What the fuck does this mean?
This is because they "lack the drive to do so"?
But men would put up a fight, you say?

[Anti-Capitalist1]

First off, my intent was merely to establsih that the woman could not be taken seriously because she had been abused by her father, and had been a prostitute, and that experience with men would make it next to impossible for a woman to be able to clearly analyze the conflicts between the sexes. The same would be true for a man, if the roles were reversed. I was not blaming her for that. My contempt for the woman lay in the fact that, after having written her manifesto, she went back to being a prostitute. That, regardless of your mental condition, is unacceptable.

Additionally, this manifesto promotes genocide(is that even the right word for murdering an etnire sex?), and it's sheer lack of understanding at the situation is mind boggling. Regardless of how long men have oppresed women, or white have oppresed blacks, do really think that it would be just to kill off all men? Or all whites? Or all of any group at all? Oh, how foolish of me, I forgot that men who would help to kill off other men would be spared their lives.

She's doing nothing more than making the legitimate women's rights movements easier to dismiss. And no, I'm not refering to liberal feminism, it's very obvious that it is useless. The fact of the matter is, say what you like, but the solution is Communism. None of this slaughter all men bullshit, true sex eqaulity, as with racial eqaulity, can only be achieved once there is economic equality. The basis of all the oppresion woman suffer is basically economic.


What the fuck does this mean?
This is because they "lack the drive to do so"?
But men would put up a fight, you say?

Simply this: It's the same reason why blacks have not yet risen up and fought against the oppresion they face, it's the same reason why jews, even after realizing the nazis were going to kill them, not merely imprison them, for the most part did not fight back... after a certain amount of time, a group of people that is repeatedly told they are inferior to another eventually comes to believe it. And that sort of thing takes quite a long time to get out of the oppresed people's heads. And that is why, "they lack the drive to do so." MEn have been on top forever, so we think we are the best, and are more willing to fight for our perceived superiority. Sort of like, even htough the number of slaves outnumbered whites in the south just before the civil war, they did not revolt, yet even though the south was vastly underpowered, they fought the north because they believed in slavery? Does that clear that up for you?

Additonally, the Nazi comparison was reffering to her advocating the extermination of the entire male sex. Surely I am not alone when I sau that killing off the entire fucking male sex is not the solution to sexual oppresion? It's the equivalent of saying that all the races except for whites should be killed off so there would be know racism.

Perhaps, my response was a little too harsh, but I just despise people that are hypocrites. And if being the author of something like the SCUM manifesto, and then going back to be a prostitute afterwards isn't hypocrisy, then I don't have any fucking idea what the word means.

And, as a final word, no, I don't hate women, I don't fear lesbians, or any of that shit. I merely disagree with this writer's apparent belief that mass murder is the solution to the sex problem.

edit: and it's not like men don't get shafted in the whole sex oppresion thing, too. Just look at the hatred towards anyone who steps outside the manly norm. Homosexuals are as oppresed, if not more so, than women.

[Kaan]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say Kaan. You don't support women being able to be open about their sexuality? Or being able to have the same type of sexual habits as men without being labelled a slut? Unless I'm totally mistaken, your version of 'radical' feminism sounds alot like a nunnery.

I support women being open about their sexuality, but that won't lead to gender equality. The being open about your sexuality thing has been hi-jacked by corporations and is another way for them to sell young women things. Complete social equality for both men and women can be achieved only through social revolution, once the money element is removed from sexual relationships and the restrictions of moralism and religion are eradicated, then everyone can be truly open with their sexuality.

[DReaver13]

Woah quite a response.


What did you find "irritating"?
Well, I was taught about Feminism alongside say, Marxism, New-Right and Functionalism at school, so it seemed as if these were the "major" theoretical standpoints. Feminism just stood out as a lot less significant than the others, at least in modern times where gender inequality isn't so prominent.

I'm no expert, but I really don't see women being suboordinated anymore, at least not in my generation. I have written a critique of Feminism for my website, and I'd appreciate comments. If I've got it wrong then I'd like to know, and I can alter it.

http://www.darkreavers.co.uk/articles_critiqueoffeminism.htm


She was raped and became a prostitute. For you to use the fact that was abused sexually against her is disgusting. How dare you insult a woman for being subjugated sexually her whole life. How dare you blame her for that.
Hmm, but what if Hitler himself had an abused childhood? Is he not to blame either?

[Hiero]

The lady should be discredict and thought of as crazy because he theoryu if acted apon would bring the murder of 3 212 352 436 human beings.

[RedAnarchist]

whilst her views are small-minded and reactionjary, it is not entirely her fault. Her experiences shaped and warped her views. She does not truly hate men, but her writing is illogical, idiotic and, to put it nicely, absolute rubbish.
Males, we are not going to be ever attacked like that by women. This woman was not nasty or dranged, she was simply angry, and her anger has made her write these things. She was no Hitler.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Anti-Capitalist+--> (Anti-Capitalist)My contempt for the woman lay in the fact that, after having written her manifesto, she went back to being a prostitute. That, regardless of your mental condition, is unacceptable.[/b]

I see...you have appointed yourself Minister of Female Sexual Behavior and are in the process of drawing up a "code" of what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" for women to do.

I'm sure they are all eagerly awaiting the other provisions of your "code". :lol:


Additionally, this manifesto promotes genocide (is that even the right word for murdering an entire sex?)...

Try "gender-cide".

You know, like the preferential abortion of female embryos. Or the withholding of resources for the education of female children. Or "honor killings". Stuff like that...that takes place now.

As to the future demise of the male, there are plausible scenarios that don't require killing anyone.

As reproductive technology continues to advance, it may become "cheap and easy" to exercise sex-determination prior to conception (it can be done now, but it's very expensive and far from certain). Suppose fewer and fewer women decided to conceive males and more and more decided to conceive only daughters -- either through cloning or through the artificial combination of two eggs?

Males would indeed then gradually become extinct.

Is that a "great catastrophe"? It wouldn't affect me...or you or any male alive at the present time or for centuries to come. The resulting all-female society would seem very odd to a 21st century male, no doubt.

But it would still be a human society and undoubtedly a classless one.

So what's the "big deal"?


DReaver13
Feminism just stood out as a lot less significant than the others, at least in modern times where gender inequality isn't so prominent.

From the BBC site...


Your 2,591 search results for "rape"


Your 31 search results for "sexual harrassment"


Your 132 search results for "sexual discrimination"


Your 70 search results for "feminism"


Your 1,448 search results for "women's rights"

I could continue...but I think you get the idea.


I'm no expert, but I really don't see women being suboordinated anymore, at least not in my generation.

:lol: The problem is not your lack of expertise; it's your lack of being female.

As I noted, you can either read some serious feminist writings or you can just look around, not see any "women in chains", and assume that everything must be going "ok" for the "girls".


I have written a critique of Feminism for my website, and I'd appreciate comments. If I've got it wrong then I'd like to know, and I can alter it.

You should not alter it; you should delete it. It's patriarchal bullshit!

I would illustrate this in the form of quotes from the article...but your site will not let me copy and paste (probably a wise precaution!) -- and I'm damned if I'm going to physically re-type that crap.

But I note that you're not exactly a "fan" of communism or anarchism either.

Understandably.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dyst]

The whole idea with gender versus gender is idiotic. We are all humans, and as a gender, women are not evil, neither are men. If it were not for women, the Earth would go to hell and reproduction would obiously stop. If it were not for men, the Earth would go to hell and reproduction would obiously stop.

Let us just come to terms with the idea that women and men are different, and there is really not that much to argue about, as long as both gets the same rights and needs are fullfilled.

[wellis]

luckuly we can speak, and not only smell each other ass :lol:
we are great we can speak(sarcasme) ;)

[DReaver13]

As I noted, you can either read some serious feminist writings or you can just look around, not see any "women in chains", and assume that everything must be going "ok" for the "girls".
Heh, well isn't "looking around" more of an insight than someones writings on the subject? I want to actually witness this suboordination and inequality before I believe in it.


You should not alter it; you should delete it. It's patriarchal bullshit!
Is it? I didn't really think it was that harsh.. :unsure: It took me ages! Oh well, it's not really my area of interest, just some loose-end type thoughts I had after finishing my A-Levels.


I would illustrate this in the form of quotes from the article...but your site will not let me copy and paste (probably a wise precaution!) -- and I'm damned if I'm going to physically re-type that crap.
Really? I thought I removed that... :blink:


But I note that you're not exactly a "fan" of communism or anarchism either.

Understandably.
Where did you get that from? The bit about "The harsh things that can be said about anarchism and communism can be said with yet more force about feminism.."? Ah, well notice I said "things that can be said", I didn't mean it to sound like I say those things, just that opposers of communism/anarchism can say them.

I am certainly a "fan" of communism. It's one of the most interesting and contraversial topics I know of. I was a pure communist about 8 months ago, until I started my huge debate over at capitalist paradise and they ripped all my communist ideas apart. Now I am agnostic. I really don't know what to think anymore. I still wear my Che and Hammer & Sickle T-shirts though. ;) I'm also interested in the history of Communism, mainly in the CCCP, having been born there.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:39 PM

As I noted, you can either read some serious feminist writings or you can just look around, not see any "women in chains", and assume that everything must be going "ok" for the "girls".
Heh, well isn't "looking around" more of an insight than someones writings on the subject? I want to actually witness this suboordination and inequality before I believe in it.
:angry:

Ever noticed how women don't feel it their place to ask you out?

Ever noticed that normally women don't initiate affection with men?

Ever noticed that many women don't acually love?

Ever heard a little girl saying that she'd grow up to marry a doctor/ lawyer/ athlete/ actor/ rich guy?

I could go on.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)I see...you have appointed yourself Minister of Female Sexual Behavior and are in the process of drawing up a "code" of what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" for women to do.

I'm sure they are all eagerly awaiting the other provisions of your "code". :lol:[/b]

Once again, you horribly misunderstood me. I have no "code", I do not think the government should have any part in deciding what sort of sexual activities yo can engage in. My meaning was to point out the obvious hypocrisy in her having returned to being a prostitute, willingly subjecting herself to such bellitlement at the hands of a man, after having written the manifesto. That's hypocrisy.

Additionally, I never saod that there was no chance of there ever being an exticntion of males, I merely criticized the fact she advocates a slaughtering of men, rather than using science to achieve such a goal.

Also, might, just maybe, be worth while to note that I never said that females were not oppresed currently, I never denied nor justified the oppresion that has been occuring since the begining of written history.


Anti-Capitalist
...true sex eqaulity, as with racial eqaulity, can only be achieved once there is economic equality. The basis of all the oppresion woman suffer is basically economic.

... I don't know about you, but that statement hardly qualifies as sexist.

If you really want to, you can consider me to be a right wing, sexist, moralistic idiot, but I am not in fact, any of those. I do not think there should be any codes, I believe that the government should not attempt to legislate morality, and that any sexual action that occurs between two or more people, be it straight, gay, lesbian, or whatever, should be allowed to occur, so long as all participating parties are consenting adults. I am not sexist. You may believe me to be so, but trust me, I'm not.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly Pop+Dec 10 2004, 03:50 PM--> (Discarded Wobbly Pop @ Dec 10 2004, 03:50 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 09:39 PM

As I noted, you can either read some serious feminist writings or you can just look around, not see any "women in chains", and assume that everything must be going "ok" for the "girls".
Heh, well isn't "looking around" more of an insight than someones writings on the subject? I want to actually witness this suboordination and inequality before I believe in it.
:angry:

Ever noticed how women don't feel it their place to ask you out?

Ever noticed that normally women don't initiate affection with men?

Ever noticed that many women don't acually love?

Ever heard a little girl saying that she'd grow up to marry a doctor/ lawyer/ athlete/ actor/ rich guy?

I could go on. [/b]
This is really, really, more than you know, not the right time to be saying stuff like this in this thread.

Edit: Wow, I have a 40% warning rate... I'm heading for bannage at a steady rate of 240 miles per hour.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by Anti-Capitalist+Dec 10 2004, 11:01 PM--> (Anti-Capitalist @ Dec 10 2004, 11:01 PM)
Originally posted by Discarded Wobbly [email protected] 10 2004, 03:50 PM

[email protected] 10 2004, 09:39 PM

As I noted, you can either read some serious feminist writings or you can just look around, not see any "women in chains", and assume that everything must be going "ok" for the "girls".
Heh, well isn't "looking around" more of an insight than someones writings on the subject? I want to actually witness this suboordination and inequality before I believe in it.
:angry:

Ever noticed how women don't feel it their place to ask you out?

Ever noticed that normally women don't initiate affection with men?

Ever noticed that many women don't acually love?

Ever heard a little girl saying that she'd grow up to marry a doctor/ lawyer/ athlete/ actor/ rich guy?

I could go on.
This is really, really, more than you know, not the right time to be saying stuff like this in this thread.

Edit: Wow, I have a 40% warning rate... I'm heading for bannage at a steady rate of 240 miles per hour. [/b]
Your confusion is confusing me.

I am giving examples of how one can witness that women are subordinated in our society. In case you didn't notice.

[redstar2000]

The problem, Anti-Capitalist, is that you are sending us "mixed messages"...which some read in a harsher light than others (hence the two warning points).

You didn't get them from me, nor did I ever entertain the thought of giving you any warning points.

But people here have become more "sensitive" on this issue...we really don't want to hear a lot of "masculine" whining about "female supremacy" or "the elimination of males".

First, because it's self-evidently not true.

And second, because it ultimately echoes the most reactionary aspects of existing class society.

Anyone can say that they're "for" equality -- George W. Bush probably says it -- and, at the same time, add enough "qualifications" to make the original sentence utterly meaningless and even completely false.

It's a fact that when the "S.C.U.M. Manifesto" was published, no one took it seriously...not even other feminists.

If anything, it was what we would today call "performance art"...something to provoke, not to instruct. The fact that a "sociology professor" teaches it as a "serious text" says a lot more about him than it does about feminism.

And the fact that you and DReaver13 took it seriously as a "grave threat to male-dom" raises suspicions about your own views.

I think it very unlikely that you will be banned...but consistent hostility to feminism could win you and DReaver13 a one-way ticket to Opposing Ideologies.

I'm sorry if that seems "harsh"...but times change and we are not as "forgiving" as we once were.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 07:25 PM
I think it very unlikely that you will be banned...but consistent hostility to feminism could win you and DReaver13 a one-way ticket to Opposing Ideologies.

I'm sorry if that seems "harsh"...but times change and we are not as "forgiving" as we once were.


The key word is consistent. It's not as if I have a "history" of being anti-feminist... the opposite is true.

Surely, one response that raises supicion due to my taking it too seriously is not sufficient evidence to warrant anything more than a warning, at the very most.

And I'll say it again: My being male doesn't make me any better than females, any more than my being white makes me better than blacks. It's foolish to think that because the because of a mere roll of the genetic die that one person is better than another.

I'm sorry for taking it too seriously. My main greivance was the fact that after having written the piece, she returnned to being a sex object, a prostitute. I don't blame her for being a prostitute before she wrote the scum manifesto, nor fror being sexually abused by her father. But, I do blame her for having written the manifesto, which is so great an indictment of men and the way they treat women, that she voluntarily returned to being a prostitute. Am I getting my point across here? I would harbor the same contempt for Marx had he written the manifesto and then gone on to found one of the modern world's Fortune 500 companys.

Anyways, I'll be sure not to take anything too seriously in the future. Wouldn't want to fall victim to the apparent chain of logic that, "he is against one feminist so he must be against them all!"

I'll admit, some of the language I used was innapropriate, and I was a bit harsh, but I am guilty of nothing more than that. And I most certainly have not shown a "consistent hostility to feminism."

And as for that one way ticket, as I understand it, some are trying to buy me one right now.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

oh, and one other thing I'd like to say: I voted for Raisa as a moderator for the very reason that I hoped that female leadership would attract a larger female population to Che-lives! I'm not a sexist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1
In continued defence of the SCUM Manifesto, I'd like to suggest, again, that its critics are bruttally misinturpreting it, and that their literal take on it is, at best, silly, and, more likely, a reflection of patriarchal attitudes. I think that, on a reasoned reading, not reacting on a gut level (and, I confess when I first read it, I had a similarly negative reaction) it is rather clear that Solanas did not actually defend the position of everyone-with-a-y-chromosone must die. This narrow and reactionary reading of the SCUM Manifesto raises some interesting questions - for example, my might we brush a similarly provocative stance from our favorite punk band, but bring out our teeth when somebody threatens our male order? Consider the context in which it was written, the social climate, etc. and go back and read it as though it were a punk album, and again, pay close attention to the ammusing paragraph describing the Men's Auxiliary.

2
As if this board of supposedly progressive folk's inability to wrap their head around the SCUM Manifesto wasn't an indicator of a healthily patriarchal society (har har), I don't think it takes an indepth study of modern western culture to see that - in addition to widespread-spread rape, wage inequality, and all of those boring old issues - objectifies and reduces women to commodities. Even if this weren't the case, as long as we still live in a society maintains the idea of two strictly defined genders with a given set of biological differences and set social roles, none of us will be liberated.

3
A-C and DReaver13: I'm going to resist the urge to pounce on you, and just ask that you both go and read John Stoltenberg's Refusing To Be A Man or at least a few selections from it. It's not perfect, but I think it will help you think about gender and feminism in a new way.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 11 2004, 06:29 AM
3
A-C and DReaver13: I'm going to resist the urge to pounce on you, and just ask that you both go and read John Stoltenberg's Refusing To Be A Man or at least a few selections from it. It's not perfect, but I think it will help you think about gender and feminism in a new way.
I will do so.

[DReaver13]

Okay, I see that everyone is very pro-feminist, so you all believe there's a huge gender bias. Now, at the moment I don't see it, and I'll take the advice to read more on the subject, but I'd like to carry on this discussion as well. That's what a forum is for after all.

First, I am certainly not pro-patriarchal. Men and women should be treated equally in all regards, except in those where they actually aren't equal, i.e. biologically. You can't say it's "unfair" that women have to give birth for example, since that's not in a social context which is what this discussion is about.

I am not anti-feminist because I don't think women should should be treated as equals, but rather because I simply don't see what the fuss is about. For example:


Ever noticed how women don't feel it their place to ask you out?
Not where I come from no.


Ever noticed that normally women don't initiate affection with men?
Definitely not, if my girlfriend is anything to go by.


Ever noticed that many women don't acually love?
Love lacks a universal definition so it's not really answerable. But by a general definition, many men don't either.


Ever heard a little girl saying that she'd grow up to marry a doctor/ lawyer/ athlete/ actor/ rich guy?
Yer, but.. so? I could say I wanted to marry a rich woman.. I don't see how it's patriarchal.

And as for sexual harassment and all that, women harass men exactly the same. It all about the individuals in question. Men and women are just as bad. Many go out on a night. Many get drunk. Many act like slobs. (From personal experience). Heh, maybe this is just the English.

As for rape... it's still about the individual. I can't see how it's a huge structural problem when some sicko rapes a woman. If you put it in perspective, most men are decent. Well, that's how it seems to me. I suppose you'll say I've been brainwashed to not see it all.


It's a fact that when the "S.C.U.M. Manifesto" was published, no one took it seriously...not even other feminists.
But did she want it to be taken seriously? If so, how can you defend proposals of genocide?

DON'T get all nasty on me because I'm a "woman hater" or anything, since I am not. This is like.. the FIRST proper argument I've had about feminism!

[RedAnarchist]

I dont actually think that these physical differences exist. Why on earth would a woman be weaker physically? Thats like saying someone is weaker beacause they have red hair or have brown skin - physical strentgh does not get affected by whther you have breasts or a dick.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DReaver13
But did she want it to be taken seriously?

I doubt it...there's no reference in feminist writings of that era that suggest that she attempted to organize women around the S.C.U.M. manifesto...in fact, it's hardly mentioned at all.

On the other hand, it did get a lot of attention in the "pop culture" scene in New York City...suggesting what her real purpose might have been.


DON'T get all nasty on me because I'm a "woman hater" or anything, since I am not. This is like.. the FIRST proper argument I've had about feminism!

I thought that might be the case...which is why you weren't instantly restricted to Opposing Ideologies.

I don't blame you; I blame that asshole of a "sociology professor" that you had.

But I do think that it's imperative that if you're going to discuss feminism in a serious way, that you read up on it...you could easily visit some feminist web-sites, for example. Learn what feminists really say instead of patriarchal cliches about "man-haters".

Some feminist thinking meshes rather easily with Marxism; other feminist views don't...and some are actually reactionary.

Learn the difference!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DReaver13]

I doubt it...there's no reference in feminist writings of that era that suggest that she attempted to organize women around the S.C.U.M. manifesto...in fact, it's hardly mentioned at all.

On the other hand, it did get a lot of attention in the "pop culture" scene in New York City...suggesting what her real purpose might have been.
Did you know she shot the artist Andy Warhol? Sounds pretty serious!


I thought that might be the case...which is why you weren't instantly restricted to Opposing Ideologies.
If that had happened, then this place would be no better than the capitalist / objectivist forums! "STATE WHAT YOU FAVOUR! YOU SUGGESTED SOMETHING THAT SLIGHTLY CONFLICTS WITH OUR BELIEFS. BANNED!"


I don't blame you; I blame that asshole of a "sociology professor" that you had.
Aww it's not his fault. He was my favourite teacher ever! He was very pro communist / marxist! Blame the textbooks or the exam board.


But I do think that it's imperative that if you're going to discuss feminism in a serious way, that you read up on it...you could easily visit some feminist web-sites, for example. Learn what feminists really say instead of patriarchal cliches about "man-haters".

Some feminist thinking meshes rather easily with Marxism; other feminist views don't...and some are actually reactionary.

Learn the difference!
I might read up on it at some point, but I'm more into Philosophy right now. I'm reading Kant and also having major debates with objectivists. I've lasted 30 pages without getting banned! Wahey!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If that had happened, then this place would be no better than the capitalist / objectivist forums! "STATE WHAT YOU FAVOUR! YOU SUGGESTED SOMETHING THAT SLIGHTLY CONFLICTS WITH OUR BELIEFS. BANNED!"

See, that's the problem right there - opposition to the liberation of women isn't a "slight conflict" - it's an absolute and irreconcilable conflict. You can't demand the liberation of half of the working class and continued domination of the other. It's as fundamental as any other aspect of communism, and you've got to stop brushing it aside.

[DReaver13]

See, that's the problem right there - opposition to the liberation of women isn't a "slight conflict" - it's an absolute and irreconcilable conflict. You can't demand the liberation of half of the working class and continued domination of the other. It's as fundamental as any other aspect of communism, and you've got to stop brushing it aside.
As I have said, I'm not opposed to the "liberation of women". I don't conflict with that. I also see that some women are treated unfairly. But, I don't think that women as a whole are treated unfairly, at least not by men as a whole. All the males here who support women's liberation are evidence of that. So, who is suboordinating women?

I think that everyone gets treated unfairly by someone, at some time, for some reason, and when it's a woman then it's often wrongly seen instantly as a sexist act. What if it gets to the point where you can't even criticize a woman because it would make you labelled a sexist or a woman-hater. It seems to be the case already in some areas. It's looked down upon a LOT if a man hits a woman, but if a woman hits a man, no-one cares.

With a lot of the feminism I've read about (which is evidently not much) they are giving women additional rights and privileges to make up for the ones taken away by "men", rather than simply equivocating the rights of both sexes.

[T_SP]

Feminism is kinda weird! It's like they put a label on themselves and all group together and fight for rights which they ain't gonna get under Capitalism. Whereas what they need to do is link there own politics in with the need for a social change and stop caging themselves up and spitting venom at men who can aid them in their stuggles.
It seems to me that some Feminists alienate themselves from the rest of society then whinge about it!! How bizzare :blink:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DReaver13+--> (DReaver13)Did you know she shot the artist [sic] Andy Warhol? Sounds pretty serious![/b]

Artist???

Anyways, she probably saw him as a competitor in the pop culture scene.


But, I don't think that women as a whole are treated unfairly, at least not by men as a whole.

That's really not the point.

If powerful men treat women unfairly, that's all that's required.

And while the balance has been shifting over the last few decades, I think it's still reasonable to admit that men "as a whole" have more power than women "as a whole".


All the males here who support women's liberation are evidence of that. So, who is subordinating women?

Do you think that the males at Che-Lives are a representative sample of men "as a whole"?

And, for that matter, do you think that every guy who's learned to offer up some ceremonial feminist rhetoric is necessarily "immune" to patriarchal practice?

As to "who", start with the ruling class and work down from there.


I think that everyone gets treated unfairly by someone, at some time, for some reason, and when it's a woman, then it's often wrongly seen instantly as a sexist act.

It usually is.

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.


What if it gets to the point where you can't even criticize a woman because it would make you labeled a sexist or a woman-hater?

What if it does? If you think the criticism is justified, then you make it anyway and damn the consequences.


It's looked down upon a LOT if a man hits a woman, but if a woman hits a man, no-one cares.

Yes, because of the generally disproportionate amount of force involved. If a muscular 200lb. woman beats up a 125lb. wuss, then I'm sure that criticisms will be raised.

Just as soon as it ever happens.


With a lot of the feminism I've read about (which is evidently not much) they are giving women additional rights and privileges to make up for the ones taken away by "men"...

You would appear to be referring to the concept of "affirmative action" here -- that employers who have traditionally discriminated against women are now (under some circumstances) required by law to make up for that past discrimination by hiring more women until some reasonable degree of equity is achieved.

That seems fair to me.


T SP
Feminism is kinda weird!...Feminists alienate themselves from the rest of society then whinge about it!! How bizarre.

What's really bizarre is to read this kind of ignorant rot in the Theory forum of this board.

Off to the Learning forum...as there is much learning needed before you guys can even discuss this stuff.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[T_SP]

Oh I'm sorry great guru RedStar, I forgot you are the ultimate authority on everything! Don't patronize me!
My comments were light hearted and meant to be taken a such.

[Hiero]

Anyways, she probably saw him as a competitor in the pop culture scene.

She wanted him to direct a movie she wrote a sript for, he accepted the script and then read it and thought it was shit house and avioded her for the time being. When she finally contacted him he said he had lost it. Then when a time later she shot him because she blamed him for her fianacial problems

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 12:20 PM
Oh I'm sorry great guru RedStar, I forgot you are the ultimate authority on everything! Don't patronize me!
My comments were light hearted and meant to be taken a such.
How many times do you need reminding?

When you say something lame in the Theory forum, people do not laugh and say what a funny guy you are. They think you mean what you say and react accordingly.

And what you said was patronizing and hostile to women.

If you just want to dick around, then post in Chit-Chat.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Anti-Capitalist1]

i must say that I do now realize the objections you had with what I said, but you must forgive me, as I have next to no experience with feminism, nor have I studied it, nor have I even thought about it on any serious level up to this point. Plus, I'm the ripe, old, mature age of 16, and, not to mention, that my father was an extreme sexist. I now live with my step-father, who is extremely left, and my mother, somewhat left. But I spent most of my life with my sexist father.

That's not sexism, that's ignorance, and certainly not enough to merit a ban.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

*Hug*
I like that you admit to ignorance of it.
I was a sexist asshole at sixteen . . . I probably threw around the term "feminazi".

I promise, once you start questioning patriarchy on its really fundamental levels, things start to come together.

I think I was seventeen when I had a really series of enlightening conversations with a bunch of anarchists regarding questions of sexism:


"What the fuck is with a women-only health club? Isn't that sexist?"
"Every gym is essentially a men's club! Denying women a safe space outside the grasp of patriarchy is what's sexist."

"But I'm not sexist, I just men and women to have the same rights - no special rights for women!"
"But men do have special rights - male prvillage is a fact of our society, and as long as their is a unique class of 'men' that will be the case, and indeed, that is its purpose!"

"We can't just do away with all the men . . ."
"'Man' and 'women' are socially constructed - like, for example, race. We simply have to smash the myth-framework upon which the false gender-dichtomy exists."


At the time, these things were fucking mindbending.

[Dyst]

How is every gym essentially a men's club?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The experiences of female friends have lead me to believe that if you're a grrrl in gym, you're not there to use the gym, you're there as a sex-object.
One shouldn't have to face degradation in order to get a workout.
(Still, that was just an example, right? You know what I mean.)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It has been pretty much told already.

But I see feminism as very needed.

Most men are just plain sexist, but even we from the radical-left/anarchists/revolutionaries/whatever have patriarchial implemented in us. As a direct-result of our enviroment, education and patriachal society, this is pretty hard to shed off.

The struggle of feminism altough deeply implemented in the struggle against capitalism, is still not the same. Aboslishment of capitalism, does not equal the abolishment of sexism. Because even we revolutionaries hold these views, whetever conscious or not, unless some women shake us up, we will continue to opress women.

It has to be clear that this society is obviously in favor of men, women have a struggle to fight!

The least effective method would be discussing amongst us men what is and is not acceptable to women. It takes women to wake us up and dismiss such patriachial views, organized women that is!

[Dyst]

Although I agree (not with, just the fact) and know that women are underrepresentated and is often paid lower than men in jobs, etc. I don't see the reason for a "revolution" for this to be abolished. Wouldn't it pretty much solve itself after the constant thrive for profit is abolished? Meaning the socialist revolution.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Power structures are closely interwoven, but I don't think a communist revolution sans gender-analysis will magicly make patriarchy disapear. While indeed, material relationships to means of production are connected to other existing power structures, historically speaking, I think we've seen that other oppressions won't suddenly melt.

Consider racism.
Indeed, the institutionalized poverty of "non-whites" (What the hell does that mean?) perpetuates racism, but if, tomorrow, we woke up on equal economic footing, I have no doubt that reactionary racialist ideology would remain.

[Free Spirit]

Do you think gender inequalities are still a major problem? Or are Feminists just trying to push it further than it needed to go?
There's no question about it if it's still a problem, it's not as big as it was but no matter how small or big it is, it's not suppose to be there. Things like women getting less played because she is not a man. If that's pushing it further, then the feminism will rise even higher until idiotism like hat is destroyed. But one thing I think is a little bit out of the line when few feminists becomes like man hating activists when it was for the equality from the beginning.
Nowadays feminism is more active in anti rapists. That's the big issue right now and I agree with most of you all… I agree that feminism is needed.

[DReaver13]

What about all the "sexist" values which give women priority? The whole "being a gentleman" thing. There are gender stereotypes for both sexes, not just females. And not only that, there is preconceptions created for every characteristic you can think of. Age, ethnicity, profession, hair colour, nationality, height, wealth. Why focus so much on gender?

Also, why is being a housewife seen as a raw deal? I'd love to be able to never have to leave the house and not have to get up bright and early every morning for work!! :D

Basically we have got a gender stereotype for males and the same for females. These differ across different areas, countries, cultures etc.

The women is often seen as physically weaker, but wait a minute, on average they are physically weaker! You can't complain about it being sexist not letting women do more physical type jobs when they are in actual fact, less suitable for them.

The "male as breadwinner" thing I can agree is gender biased, not necessarily towards anyone because I don't see either of the roles as particularly "better" than the other. It still creates an expected norm for the sexes which should be eliminated : i.e "Men should get all the money because they're crap at housekeeping, women should do the housework because that's what they're good at". I reckon that this is diminishing anyway.

Can someone also explain how rape is sexist? It seems to me that it is more like a skewed mindset of a small minority. Is murder sexist? Is theft sexist? Sure, most rape is commited by men, but I don't get how it directly relates to sexism and the 'dominant idea' that men are superior. Men often commit rape because they have psychological and sexual problems, not simply because they think they are better than women.

I'd just like to get some more specific ideas of what people see as sexist in society, rather than the simple "society is sexist", "feminism is needed" that has been said thus far.

I simply think no one should be judged or stereotyped based on superficial "on the surface" preconceptions, this applying to all types of stereotyping. For example, the elderly aren't always boring and slow, and German people aren't all war criminals.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DReaver13
What about all the "sexist" values which give women priority? The whole "being a gentleman" thing. There are gender stereotypes for both sexes, not just females. And not only that, there is preconceptions created for every characteristic you can think of. Age, ethnicity, profession, hair colour, nationality, height, wealth. Why focus so much on gender?

Because gender is one of the "biggies". The stereotypes that assume female inferiority have a negative impact on half the human species.

Yes, there are stereotypes for both genders. But if you stop and think about it, you cannot deny that most of the male stereotypes are considered "positive" while most of the female stereotypes are "negative".

All stereotypes are oppressive to some degree; but negative stereotypes are obviously far more oppressive than positive stereotypes.

There's a radio commercial for a right-wing talk show that's currently running in my city...and it asserts, flat out, that "all" women are "emotional and irrational" and "all" men are "rational", while strongly implying that the "rational" should dominate the "irrational".

If the rational ever did dominate the irrational, this commercial would never have been written, much less broadcast!

And, of course, it's only one of millions of such commercials (in all forms of the media) that a woman is exposed to in the course of her life.


Also, why is being a housewife seen as a raw deal? I'd love to be able to never have to leave the house and not have to get up bright and early every morning for work!!

You'd still have to get up "bright and early" every morning. You'd have to make her breakfast, drive her to work, go to the grocery, clean the house, wash the dishes/clothes, pick her up after work, make dinner and clean up afterwards.

If you had one or more children, then you'd really find out what it's like.

"Raw deal" doesn't even begin to describe it!

In addition to which -- as your own words reveal -- you get no r-e-s-p-e-c-t!

And no wages, either. You know what the status is, of course, of people in this society who have no money of their own.


The women are often seen as physically weaker, but wait a minute, on average they are physically weaker! You can't complain about it being sexist not letting women do more physical type jobs when they are in actual fact, less suitable for them.

Discrimination against women is rarely based solely on the disparity in strength. I think what you're referring to here is probably the exclusion of women from certain skilled trades -- not because they "don't have the strength" or even the skills, but just because they are women.

You do not have to be capable of professional weight-lifting in order to be an auto-mechanic, carpenter, electrician, plumber, truck-driver, etc.

But there was a time when a penis was a requirement. (!)

In many places, it still is.


Can someone also explain how rape is sexist?

Because rape is not really "about sex" at all...it's about power.

Both males and females who lack a suitable partner usually resort to fantasy and masturbation for relief of sexual tension.

Rape is different: it's an act of domination by a male over a female (or weaker male). The rapist confirms his "superior power" by acting against the will of the victim.


I'd just like to get some more specific ideas of what people see as sexist in society, rather than the simple "society is sexist", "feminism is needed" that has been said thus far.

You need to look around you "through a woman's eyes"...which is not easy, but it is do-able. Start by looking at the messages that society sends to people about men and women -- things that we see and hear all the time...so much so that "we don't even think about them".

Think about them.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Seriously though, any male who feels threatened/bothered/targetted by the SCUM Manifesto is just afraid that he'll have no place in tomorrow's Lesbian-Anarchist society . . . and is the sort of frightful bore who really should get dead come the revolution!

This has something to do with discrimination.

By saying "any male who feels threathened/bothered/targetted by the SCUM Manifesto is just afraid that he'll have no place in tomorrow's Lesbian-Anarchist society . ."


Are you saying that men has to suffer being discriminated in an anarchist society?


And what do you mean by "tommorow's Lesbian Anarchist society"? It seems that you are implying that everyone is going to be a lesbian in an anarchist society, and if that is true, men is surely going to be discriminated and hated, all in the name of "freedom" and "womens liberation". Or are you perhaps saying that an anarchist society will be dominated by lesbians?


Also, by saying "and is the sort of frightful bore who really should get dead come the revolution!", I believe you are implying that those who does not like women discriminating men, will be shot. Am I wrong?


What is funny is that when females are being discriminated, people get hysterical, but when a women does the same (ie discriminating), you are supposed to take it with "humour".


What a lot of feminists support is in reality matriarchy. All I have to say is fuck that shit. They are just reactionary conservatives.



Rape is different: it's an act of domination by a male over a female (or weaker male). The rapist confirms his "superior power" by acting against the will of the victim.



It could also be an act of domination of a female over a male. It has happen several times in several different cultures.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted
What a lot of feminists support is in reality matriarchy. All I have to say is fuck that shit. They are just reactionary conservatives.

Have you done so well under patriarchy then?

You are over-reacting to what was clearly intended as irony -- "lesbian anarchist society", etc.

More interesting is why you should react with such vehemence even if the suggestion were "serious".

An anarchist society is one without a state apparatus or economic classes...consequently, without any of the current forms of oppression.

Adding the word "lesbian" would imply that lesbian-feminists would, at most, "set the cultural tone" of such a society.

For example, families might be "matriarchal" -- centered around an older woman, her daughters, and their children. Men would be "guests" in such families...permitted to stay based on their on-going "good behavior". If they behaved badly, they would be expelled.

Does that strike you as horribly "reactionary"?

Why?

I'm not "predicting" that such a family structure "must" evolve after the revolution...but I don't see it as "a bad thing" if it did. The patriarchal family has been such an on-going catastrophe for women and children that the matriarchal version is "worth a shot" at least.

And it's not as if we're going to "make" people live like that "or else".

I think you need to drag your "fears" out in the open and really examine what they mean...and what they are "based" on.


It [rape] could also be an act of domination of a female over a male. It has happen several times in several different cultures.

I have never heard of such a thing. Would you like to tell us (1) how a woman can rape a man and (2) what "different cultures" where such "events" can take place are you referring to?

I look forward to your response with great curiosity. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You are over-reacting to what was clearly intended as irony -- "lesbian anarchist society", etc.

I apparently don't get jokes, then. :P



For example, families might be "matriarchal" -- centered around an older woman, her daughters, and their children. Men would be "guests" in such families...permitted to stay based on their on-going "good behavior". If they behaved badly, they would be expelled.

Does that strike you as horribly "reactionary"?

Probably as reactionary you would have found it, if families were patriarchal.


I'm not "predicting" that such a family structure "must" evolve after the revolution...but I don't see it as "a bad thing" if it did.

I do.

Why?

Because I believe in gender-equality. I believe we should forget gender and consider everyone around as equals, not seeing the world as women and/or men, as somehow we are seperated and different.

Don't get me wrong: I believe that groups promoting woman's rights can have a very progressive role in many, especially backward countries, but when these groups starts to ***** about genders, and when they say women are superior to men, then something tells me there is something wrong.


I have never heard of such a thing. Would you like to tell us (1) how a woman can rape a man and (2) what "different cultures" where such "events" can take place are you referring to?

I read about it in an article about Japan, where men have been raped by women many times, also I've read other incidents where people have come to Islands organized where females are superior and "leaders" of the society.

The last story was about some men swimming into an isolated island after their ship broke down. They were greeted by black, big women with giant ear rings and they tied them up, and did all kinds of shit to them. One of the guys said, after getting the hell out of the Island, that he did not want the same thing happen to his worst enemy.

How can a women rape a man? They can rape a man by tying them up, after hitting them unconscious with a bat, for instance.

I don't think such things have happened often, and of course the act is much more dominant (no pun intendend) among males, but it has happened before, and it will probably happen again. Why was I reaction? It was because your post implyed that the act is done exclusively by males, which I find simply 'wrong'.


Angelina Jolie, the Russian girl in Goldeneye, Tania in the Bolivian revolution, Che's wife: All good women fighters.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted
Because I believe in gender-equality. I believe we should forget gender and consider everyone around as equals, not seeing the world as women and/or men, as somehow we are separated and different.

Yes, that's nice, but in fact we live in a patriarchal world and no one is about to "forget about gender"...including yourself. This is shown in your following statement...


Don't get me wrong: I believe that groups promoting woman's rights can have a very progressive role in many, especially backward countries, but when these groups starts to ***** about genders, and when they say women are superior to men, then something tells me there is something wrong.

A bald claim of "superiority" is always suspicious on its face...but why should it bother you so much? If some guy says "men are, as a rule, taller than women"...does that strike you as "reactionary"? Women, as a rule, live longer than men. Does that "irritate" you? Both are just statements of observed fact.

There is one current of feminist thought that sincerely believes the world would be "a better place" is women were the "rulers" instead of men. One would think the speeches of Rice, Albreit, Feinstein, etc., would serve to "cure" one of such an illusion. But, in any event, it's only a small minority of feminists that hold such a view.

A "lesbian-anarchist" would not want any rulers at all.


I read about it in an article about Japan, where men have been raped by women many times, also I've read other incidents where people have come to Islands organized where females are superior and "leaders" of the society.

I'm afraid you've been the victim of tabloid fantasies. There are no such islands. And while a woman can seduce a man into having sex with her, she cannot use violence or the threat of violence to make him erect -- except for that small number of men who find such female behavior arousing in and of itself.

For nearly all men, fear and sexual arousal are impossible to simultaneously experience.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[T_SP]

I would defend a womans rights to the hilt, but feminists are essentially one trip ponies! They do not go so far as to defend the rights of other minorites that are oppressed, yes they do get payed less than men but so do ethnic minorities. It is a fact that black people are paid less than white. Also what of 16 year old kids that are paid utterly crap wages for flipping burgers for huge corporations or kids who work in sweatshops! They seem to miss a point and what they need to do is link themselves with other groups and fight for the rights of all those who are oppressed under Capitalism.
My wife was very offened when a feminist told her she was a 'mug' for staying at home and looking after the kids! The fact is my wife WANTS to stay at home, she is happy with our domestic situation and did not need to be insulted by this feminst!
I want equal rights for ALL not just women, not just men, not just blacks or asians but ALL! Everyone!! We will never achieve this equlibrium under Capitalism! Just as animal rights activists are good for fighting for animal rights feminists are good for fighting for womens rights but they need to broaden there horizion and fight for everybodys rights!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by T_SP
I would defend a woman's rights to the hilt, but feminists are essentially one trip ponies!...My wife was very offended when a feminist told her she was a 'mug' for staying at home and looking after the kids! The fact is my wife WANTS to stay at home, she is happy with our domestic situation and did not need to be insulted by this feminist!

I believe the expression you were looking for there is "one trick ponies".

Many feminists do believe that the "traditional female role" (staying at home, restricted to domestic chores, etc.) is "a mug's game"...a waste of the human potential that every woman possesses.

And some women, like your wife, feel insulted and "put down" when this message is delivered to them.

But what is a feminist to do? Should she remain silent when she sees what she perceives to be an inherently oppressive situation?

What happens when a "happy worker-bee" hears our message that wage-slavery is inherently oppressive and exploitative?

Perhaps they feel "insulted" too -- we've just told them, in effect, that they're eating shit and don't realize it. :o

Keep in mind, however, that there are many other feminists who argue that feminism is about women's choices...whether to be "traditional" or "liberated" should be entirely up to her.

This "pony" has more than one "trick".


...but they need to broaden their horizon and fight for everybody's rights!

Perhaps...but if you don't fight the oppression that affects you first, who will?

Feminists have concluded, and justifiably in my opinion, that if they don't put women's liberation at the top of their agenda, then no one will.

In fact, that's probably true of all forms of "identity politics"...people find that their own oppression gets pushed to the end of the line unless there are some raucous voices demanding otherwise.

When people actually see a "multi-cause" movement (communism) really demonstrate in practice that it's genuinely opposed to all forms of oppression and exploitation, then we may see the unity that you (and I) desire.

That hasn't happened yet.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It's ridiculous to discredit the feminist movement, because they do not fight for the rights of other minorities. The sole porpuse of feminism is to fight for the rights of women, disaproving them on this is the same as disaproving the 40 hour workweek movement, because they didn't fight racism or the dissaprove the black liberation movement, because they didn't fight for the rights of gays.

I have no problem with these organisations and even encourage them. These struggles on the short term and their victories are blowbacks to capitalism and their dividing of society.

What is even more, that these organisations get a broader public support for their short term goals, then they would if they were to aim at the long term goal of communism.

Furthermore, even us revolutionaries have a thing or two to learn about equal treatment of women, minorities, gays etc. Therefor they are essential.

[Saint-Just]

There are many different types of feminists: radical feminists, radical lesbian feminists, liberal feminists, conservative feminists, post-modern feminists, marxist-feminists and feminist-marxists.

One should refer to the type of feminism they are aiming their comments at. Society today is, in my opinion, most heavily influenced by post-modern feminism and secondly liberal feminism.


They seem to miss a point and what they need to do is link themselves with other groups and fight for the rights of all those who are oppressed under Capitalism.

This is the precis of feminism under which marxist-feminists emerged. The problem with it is that many other feminists disagree that capitalism is exploitative.


Don't get me wrong: I believe that groups promoting woman's rights can have a very progressive role in many, especially backward countries, but when these groups starts to ***** about genders, and when they say women are superior to men, then something tells me there is something wrong.

Some feminists criticise the nature of men and say that the nature of women is superior. And when they do, maybe we should learn something. If we looked at what we were being criticised for and changed it then maybe we could prove that these things they criticise us for are cultural rather than natural.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What you said was very intelligent. I stand corrected.

[T_SP]

I am not dismissing the Feminist movement at all, only making a critique of it, as others would critique the Trotskyist movement. We are all in some way missing a point not nessicarily 'the' point but a point, otherwise we'd have people flocking to join us right?

The point was that some Feminists essentially reject men from there organisation when there are men that want to help there movement ( alienating themselves, no?) also linking up with other sympathetic movements such as the Socialist Party ( A shamless plug) would increase the size and depth of the movement and make it more appealing to a wider spectrum of people. Before I got to learn about it ( in my sorrowful days of ignorance) I thought they were a bunch of raving lesbians, how wrong I was!!

I agree with what they are doing but some huge changes do need to be made if they are ever to be successful.
Thanx T_SP :D

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:11 PM
What you said was very intelligent. I stand corrected.
Whom were you refering to?

[RJH-Music]

That is just terrible. Now I do not know very much about feminism. I do however believe in equality and this disgust me. Women should have all the rights men have and I believe they do if they can break through the stereotypes of the world. This is not only very insulting but also a mess of stereotypical BS.

[eQuaLiTy]

Well, all I have to say about population control is that it is defnitely possible. They keep tabs on the population and know everything about you.

[CommoditiesAretheOpiumofPeople]

You can't generalise all men, or even all women. Saying that all men are scum is taking it a bit far. Some men are! So leave it there, but trying to define whole groups of people with one connotation is how racism, homophobia and other shit starts. Feminism is necessary, even if all it does is raise awareness of the issue with others then it is doing its job. I think that up to a point women have always been repressed, so have lots of ethnic minorities, is it right then to say that there was no need for the NAACP or any other organisations or movements supporting repressed people?