the Sexual Bourgeoisie

[Raisa]

This has nothing to do with hating men, or blaming solely men for the womans situation because in the end it is class society that really caused it. .

But I got this theory that men, bless em, are the sexual bourgeoisie, and are set up by class society to think in a sexually bourgeois way.

This isnt bourgeois like economics. You can be broke as hell and still be the sexual bourgeoisie.
Because most of the time it is women who compromise for men.

And I bet this forum is full of revolutionary thinkers who dont want to face this and will argue " well men compromise too!" ...well that is not the point. There are plenty of wonderful men, and some who are just so whipped you can spread them on a sandwich but in the grand scheme yall....look at this here....

Who do they sell all the beauty products to? Like the world isnt full of ugly ass men!? Women are set up to obsess over how we look for men. And we do. It is sickening. Id probably be the same way if it wasnt for my beliefs. Now I look good for what I stand for, because I think I stand for a good thing and I wont disgrace it. It is like we women went from being cleaning slaves to ornaments on a capitalist christmas tree who are here to please men and make them feel important to compensate for their insecurities (and this was even worse in the fifties and all when men were the only ones making the money..then they were REALLY insecure) becasue if we dont make these tall strong old hairy boys feel like "men"....well then what kind of women are we? Probably *****es.
Sometimes this means feigning unintelligence. Sometimes it means feeling compelled to not look drastic and instead look ultra feminine. Our gender role is cute and smells real nice, but alot of it still kind of sucks!

Women do their thing and get called a hoe. You know what a hoe is? Its a thing that gets dug into the ground. Like a little shovel. And shovels are dirty cause they were all up in the dirt...come on now!
SO when we have our sex, which we need too, and which takes TWO to tango with....the woman is always the hoe in the end. No criticism for a man who would sleep with a hoe. A dirty woman. Well, look at the world. What does she need to be clean for all of a sudden? ... The man of course. Just like you want a clean car.

Even in our own magazines.....always are full of things telling us how to please men and keep a man and stuff like that. Hardly ever stuff about sexism or any of that shit. They show us other skimpy ass women...and hardly any skimpy ass men. Tv is full of half dressed women and their bodies being objectified...hardly men. And it just looks sometimes like it is a man's world...

This probably makes alot of yall pissed....and I can udnerstand why many of you you cant relate to cheauvanism here...because alot of the men here are communists and if you are a true communist you dont even see women that way, so you of course would be outraged and go " wow! thats not me what are you talking about Raisa!?!" You should still re-evaluate your thoughts anyway. All the time. Cultural revolution of the mind.

But people....if genders were a class? Really now..who do you think would be the bourgeoisie?

There was once a saying that the women are the slaves of slaves.

[codyvo]

I think this is a very interesting theory Raisa, although I haven't completely made up my mind on it yet. I don't think it would be fair to say as an outright law that men are the bourgeois, because then you forget about gay couples and the few other exceptions, but it would be fair to say that more often then not men are chauvinist, womenizing, sexists. On the other hand since america is a very multicultural place I think that it is fair to say that women are far more protected, for example, if a man were to say all women are smarter than men he would get applause from the general public, but if he were to say all men are smarter than woman he would be booed and rightfully so. What isn't taken into account though is the general stupidity and easy persuasion of the american general public and the history of the lack of womens right like the suffrage marches and the ongoing fight for the equal rights ammendment. So I think it is a two-sided coin, too complex an issue to state outright that one sex is the bourgeois and one is exploited.

[LSD]

But people....if genders were a class? Really now..who do you think would be the bourgeoisie?

But the problem is that genders are not a class.

Projecting them as such does nothing to address the very real problem of sexism.

While both are features of contemporary society, sexism and class are entirely seperate issues. While both are social creations to be sure, this does not mean that they are of similar nature, nor that they have similar characteristics. It certainly does not mean that they have similar solutions.

To be sure, the male gender is the enfranchised one and there can be no doubt that women are subjugated, but that does not mean that that subjugation is parallel to the subjugation of the working class. Rather it is along side it. Complementing it at times, contrasting with it at others. Indeed in many ways sexism contrasts with capitalism; it creates solidarity between bourgeois and workers, it reduces the power of feamle bourgeoisie, etc..

Sexism is an independent discrimination, and while it has some interesting historiagraphical ties to capitalism (the issue of inheretence for example), it is not capitalism.

As with racism and heterosexism, sexism is a prejeduce based on immutatble characteristics. That does not define class! The bouregoisie are not a "kind" of person, they are a class of persons, and the proletarians are not discriminated against, they are exploited

You point specfically to the seuxal double standard as well as the strong focus on the female body in the modern media. The first is a complex issue that largely has to do with religion and not capitalism. The second is merely a reflection of the pre-existing gender discrimination.

There's one thing you can say for the "market", it knows who's got the money!

But neither of your examples proves your argument that gender discrimination is comparable to class.

The proletarians are expoited because their labour is used by another to enrich themselves.

Women are exploited because they are the victims of antiquated sexual and social stereotypes that cast them as weaker / "purer" / frailer. Those are two very different problems and pretending that they are one in the same accomplishes nothing.

We need to deal with sexism, but let's do so rationaly and deliberately without hyperbole, exageration, or mischaracterization.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:35 AM
This has nothing to do with hating men, or blaming solely men for the womans situation because in the end it is class society that really caused it. .

But I got this theory that men, bless em, are the sexual bourgeoisie, and are set up by class society to think in a sexually bourgeois way.

This isnt bourgeois like economics. You can be broke as hell and still be the sexual bourgeoisie.
Because most of the time it is women who compromise for men.

And I bet this forum is full of revolutionary thinkers who dont want to face this and will argue " well men compromise too!" ...well that is not the point. There are plenty of wonderful men, and some who are just so whipped you can spread them on a sandwich but in the grand scheme yall....look at this here....

Who do they sell all the beauty products to? Like the world isnt full of ugly ass men!? Women are set up to obsess over how we look for men. And we do. It is sickening. Id probably be the same way if it wasnt for my beliefs. Now I look good for what I stand for, because I think I stand for a good thing and I wont disgrace it. It is like we women went from being cleaning slaves to ornaments on a capitalist christmas tree who are here to please men and make them feel important to compensate for their insecurities (and this was even worse in the fifties and all when men were the only ones making the money..then they were REALLY insecure) becasue if we dont make these tall strong old hairy boys feel like "men"....well then what kind of women are we? Probably *****es.
Sometimes this means feigning unintelligence. Sometimes it means feeling compelled to not look drastic and instead look ultra feminine. Our gender role is cute and smells real nice, but alot of it still kind of sucks!

Women do their thing and get called a hoe. You know what a hoe is? Its a thing that gets dug into the ground. Like a little shovel. And shovels are dirty cause they were all up in the dirt...come on now!
SO when we have our sex, which we need too, and which takes TWO to tango with....the woman is always the hoe in the end. No criticism for a man who would sleep with a hoe. A dirty woman. Well, look at the world. What does she need to be clean for all of a sudden? ... The man of course. Just like you want a clean car.

Even in our own magazines.....always are full of things telling us how to please men and keep a man and stuff like that. Hardly ever stuff about sexism or any of that shit. They show us other skimpy ass women...and hardly any skimpy ass men. Tv is full of half dressed women and their bodies being objectified...hardly men. And it just looks sometimes like it is a man's world...

This probably makes alot of yall pissed....and I can udnerstand why many of you you cant relate to cheauvanism here...because alot of the men here are communists and if you are a true communist you dont even see women that way, so you of course would be outraged and go " wow! thats not me what are you talking about Raisa!?!" You should still re-evaluate your thoughts anyway. All the time. Cultural revolution of the mind.

But people....if genders were a class? Really now..who do you think would be the bourgeoisie?

There was once a saying that the women are the slaves of slaves.
I think everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.
Let me tell you my opinion on the theory of the sexual bourgeoisie.

Women are the sexual bourgeoisie.

1. Why does the man always have to make the first move? That's emotional blackmail: No guts, No glory, No women. Women are simply not expected to take initiative. Not fair!

2. This soceity is created around the female lifestyle. In the good ol' days men would go to work or hunt or other hard physical jobs. Nowadays we are expected to sit behind a desk all day, planning our agenda's and whine all the time when things just don't go your way. When we get home we have to do the dishes or walk the pram down the street.

3. Man are expected to become women. The worst invention ever was gel. Suddenly we where expected to have a certain 'look', if you don't use gel you are probably gay or careless about yourself, wich in your (females) opinion isn't very good. But there is more; we even got parfumes and pinks sweaters for men nowadays.

4. Worst of all: Men get the blame for womens negligence of their own rights. They don't protest against important things like the wage-difference between man and women anymore, in the US they don't reject the Christian propaganda that prohibits abortian... no they rather just sit in their own little women-groeps complaining about men.

How is that for a gender-theory?

[eyedrop]

1. Why does the man always have to make the first move? That's emotional blackmail: No guts, No glory, No women. Women are simply not expected to take initiative. Not fair!

Thats not true in my experience. Everytime I hit on a girl its almost always a miss. Have you never seen a girl take the initiative? 90 % of my relationships have had the female take initiative.

Mostly I see it as men takes initiative more often, but when a girl likes a guy she often takes it herself. It's just the guys that hit on everybody while drunk. ( a little exagarration)


2. This soceity is created around the female lifestyle. In the good ol' days men would go to work or hunt or other hard physical jobs. Nowadays we are expected to sit behind a desk all day, planning our agenda's and whine all the time when things just don't go your way. When we get home we have to do the dishes or walk the pram down the street.

So you are saying that the females went to the office and wrote reports back in the old days to? The whole idea of a female and male lifestyle seems a little fishy (sexist) to me.


3. Man are expected to become women. The worst invention ever was gel. Suddenly we where expected to have a certain 'look', if you don't use gel you are probably gay or careless about yourself, wich in your (females) opinion isn't very good. But there is more; we even got parfumes and pinks sweaters for men nowadays.

You know that the stereotype about gay men are men who care too much about their looks? Do you really think that women are those nice smelling little dolls to cuddle, that men is closing in on? Women have been pressed into that role themselves.


4. Worst of all: Men get the blame for womens negligence of their own rights. They don't protest against important things like the wage-difference between man and women anymore, in the US they don't reject the Christian propaganda that prohibits abortian... no they rather just sit in their own little women-groeps complaining about men.

This is true in one aspect, us men can only support and help them in their struggle. The major push must come from themselves.

[OleMarxco]

The worker's revolution should also be a woman's revolution, too :D

[RedAnarchist]

Us men do not realise how our general attitudes towards women have damaged them badly. Our gender wants woman to be slim and good-looking. This has caused huge numbers of woman to suffer from eating disorders. Our gender teaches children that woman are weaker than men, almost as if to 'warn off' women from attempting to subvert the authoirty of males.

We men must realise that we should help women. There should be no more treating women like objects - for fucks sakes, these are our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts and friends people! - and start treating them like equals.

Like Ole said, any revolution must also be a womens revolution. Unlike the capitalist revolution, women can and will play an equal adn important part in our communist revolutions to come!

[RedStarOverChina]

What she said are merely facts without exaggeration. It IS a serious problem: a problem thats a part of our cause of universal liberation. For the leftists, the only disagreement is about where the core cause of it lies.

[Black Dagger]

1. Why does the man always have to make the first move? That's emotional blackmail: No guts, No glory, No women. Women are simply not expected to take initiative. Not fair!

This is not an immutable 'law' of social interaction, things happen both ways, a person is more likely to 'make a move' if they are interested in someone, if you're not a good prospect they're going to ignore you. And in terms of 'fairness', would you prefer that your social role was to intiate relatonships or to be opressed? Such a burden being a male' in a patriarchal society, isn't it?



2. This soceity is created around the female lifestyle.

So it's the 'female lifestyle' (what is that supposed to mean anyway?), to be opressed by men across the board? If we're going to start asserting gendered-'life-styles', society is clearly oriented around the 'male life-style', who has the most social/economic/political power? Society will be orientated to that group, because they control society, and 'that group' is men.



Nowadays we are expected to sit behind a desk all day, planning our agenda's and whine all the time when things just don't go your way.

Well most men don't work at desk-jobs for one.



When we get home we have to do the dishes or walk the pram down the street.

OH NOES~! 'Heaven forbid' a man actually contribute to the relationship, these are 'women's jobs' right? :rolleyes:



3. Man are expected to become women.

That's completely false, masculinity is paramount, 'acting like a woman' is acting 'inferior', acting 'weak', it's a gross insult for a 'real man' to be like a woman, it means they could be 'gay', which is OH NOES! territory for the homohobic male.



if you don't use gel you are probably gay or careless about yourself, wich in your (females) opinion isn't very good. But there is more; we even got parfumes and pinks sweaters for men nowadays.

Being linked to the word 'gay' is a problem for you, isn't it? What a terrible crime, pink jumpers you say? 'FAGS' EVERY LAST ONE! :rolleyes:



4. Worst of all: Men get the blame for womens negligence of their own rights.

Actually, men get the 'blame' for supressing women's rights.



no they rather just sit in their own little women-groeps complaining about men.

I think you just busted my 'stereotype-o-meter', good job :)



How is that for sexism?

Spot on!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

While calling men a "sexual bourgeoisie" is not exactly accurate, there are definate patriarchal power structures in place that establish a definate male-privilage.

The question may be in some ways seperate from the question of capitalism, I think LSD's pronouncement that it is not a class-question is based on a fundamentally patriarchal conception of gender. He says:


As with racism and heterosexism, sexism is a prejeduce based on immutatble characteristics. That does not define class! The bouregoisie are not a "kind" of person, they are a class of persons, and the proletarians are not discriminated against, they are exploited.

However, this rests on fundamentally essentialist notions of gender and race - whereas both represent, in reality, constructions, and they are constructions with specific ends - specifically, securing the exploitation and control of "women" and "racial" minorities.


ErikuSz -sXe- spouting sexist bullshit

That's not a gender-theory - that's a load of absurd reactionary crap.
Women are right in trying to understand and attack "maledom" and structures of patriarchal control - and clinging to myths of "the good ol' days" makes me hope a feminist kicks the shit out of yr "manly" self.

[Clarksist]

I could go either way with this one.

Part of me says equality means equality, and that it isn't fair how its PC to joke about men, but not PC to joke about women.

However, for the most part it is a man's world. However, the whole feminist-not-gonna-wear-makeup-or-dress-in-pink is really agains the movement. Women should be able to dress themselves up and be very sexy and still be equal... not that women should dress down and try to be like men. Although if they want to that's fine.

Most sexism, though, is based in capitalism. Only because in pervious generations the man made the money and the woman had the babies. The man had to make the money because the bourgeois was made up of rich white men owning companies with their trophy wives at home cleaning and giving birth.

Sexism is wrong... and its wrong both ways, women who completely generalize men are a form of sexists.

[NovelGentry]

I still would be OK with a girl who doesn't shave.

[LSD]

However, this rests on fundamentally essentialist notions of gender and race - whereas both represent, in reality, constructions, and they are constructions with specific ends - specifically, securing the exploitation and control of "women" and "racial" minorities.

Of course race and gender are socially constructed, my point was merely that they are more fundamental than class relationships.

Under capitalism, there is social mobility. Certainly there is downward mobility!

Class is an economic relationship.
Gender is a social one.


I think LSD's pronouncement that it is not a class-question is based on a fundamentally patriarchal conception of gender.

No it isn't.

Gender isn't a class question because ...it isn't a class question. It's a gender one.

But I suppose it depends on your definition of "class". Within the context of this thread, I've assumed class to be used in an economic sense, and sexism is not an economic issue! It is absolutely a social one, but that social problem stems from well before capitalism, and even before economic distinctions.

Gender oppression actually hurts capitalism, furthermore it undermines its basic principles.

So, again, sexism is a problem but it is not a class one. Calling males the "sexual bourgeoisie" is a misapplication of the term.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Gender may not a class question in the narrow sense the contridictions between proletarian and bourgeois is. However, the real, material manifestations of patriarchal structures can't be brushed aside with orthodox, economist, dogmas - there is a real and meaningful contridiction that is inter-related to "economic" questions (If anything, sexism arose with the division of labour and devaluation of women's work (for the benefit of early ruling classes). "Women" then may not have an "independant relationship to the means of production" but they do have a unique position vis-a-vis existing power structures, that should not be dismissed. Smashing patriarchy is both seperate from and tied up smashing capitalism . . . with which it has a sort of "symbiotic" relationship.
The enslavement of women as homemakers and sexual servants, the division of the working class along gender-lines, etc. has not been a hinderence to capital, but, looking outside of a narrow economistic framework, and at the just as realisticly important matter of maintaining bourgeois hegemony and systems of control, a boon for the ruling class.

Sexual bourgeoisie? No.
But is there a necessary struggle to be waged between male/not male for the destruction of gender, tied up in the struggle between owners/workers for the destruction of class? Yes.

[LSD]

Sexual bourgeoisie? No.

That's all I was saying!


The enslavement of women as homemakers and sexual servants, the division of the working class along gender-lines, etc. has not been a hinderence to capital, but, looking outside of a narrow economistic framework, and at the just as realisticly important matter of maintaining bourgeois hegemony and systems of control, a boon for the ruling class.

Well it's redundant to say, if the rulling class is ruled by men, that the subjugation of women helps the rulling class because it is ruled by men.

I was only pointing out that sexism actually violates several key point of fundamental capitalist principles and, as such, is not in and of itself an economic issue.


If anything, sexism arose with the division of labour and devaluation of women's work (for the benefit of early ruling classes

That's historically inaccurate.

Sexism predates division of labour by millenia. If anything, division of labour accompanies the first movements towards womens liberation. Mostly due to coincidences of history, but also largely because the bourgeois revolutions in Europe along with the associated collapse of feudal and aristocratic structures meant a grown conciousness of personal liberty and fundamental rights.

Sexism in the 18th and 19th century was far less than only 100 or 200 years earlier. It was light-years better than the sexism of 2000 or 3000 years before.

In fact, it's fairly hard to find an ancient civilization that was not sexist to some degree (there are examples, but they are very far and few between). Patriarchy has been one of a few constant in human socital history.

You're trying to somehow link sexism with capitalism, but that's simply not historically valid. Again, if anything, the advent of capitalism has helped women. Certainly they are doing better now than under feudalism!

Does that mean that capitalism is a "good thing"? Of course not!

It just means it's better than other options, and, specifically, better for women.


But is there a necessary struggle to be waged between male/not male for the destruction of gender, tied up in the struggle between owners/workers for the destruction of class? Yes.

Granted.

But I would propose that it is tied up only insofar as gender and class relations are both examples of relevent social systems of oppression, much like race.

But sexism can thrive without capitalism and capitalism can very much thrive without sexism. We must smash both because they are both tools of subjugation and enslavement, but, again, this does not mean that they are the same issue.

[NovelGentry]

Sexism predates division of labour by millenia.

Division of labor has existed since the early tribal relations -- pre-Roman empire style. How divided the labor is, is another question.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

I was just trying to complain about women the same way they complain about men... cause I think they are just full of shit & frustrated cause their relationships don't work out.

And I'm not a homophobe... its just that I don't agree with certain social demands society makes on men.

Anyway, who cares. If they want to change something they should just fucking do so, I still think that there is to much bullshit-talk and not much actuall resistance to this so-called 'male opression'.

[LSD]

Division of labor has existed since the early tribal relations

It depends on your definition of Division of Labour.

As I recall we had a rather lengthy discussion on the subject! :P

[*Hippie*]

I think the bourgeoisie are the ones who are keeping sexism alive in society. It isn't specifically "men", but staunch conservatives, both male and female. Corporations love it, because they can target specific genders to sell their products to and they sell sexism by doing this. Just the other day, I was reading a post on one of my boards by a female about how women shouldn't be in the military and should stay and home and look after kids instead of having a big career. It was sad to see a woman betray her gender but it also made me realize it is just conservative people and their warped thinking who are at the real root of this problem.

[workersunity]

i wouldnt say all men, I know a lot of men that arent like this, including myself, i think you should tone it a bit

[Brennus]

Originally posted by Raisa+--> (Raisa)Who do they sell all the beauty products to? Like the world isnt full of ugly ass men!?[/b]

:lol:

Society sets up beauty standards for both sexes. Men are required to have bulging muscles and a tall height. Think about it - who do they sell all the exercise weights to? Unfortunately for us, we aren't able to go down to the supermarket and buy some "height increasin lotion."


Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
Gender oppression actually hurts capitalism, furthermore it undermines its basic principles.

Quite true. Capitalism discourages economic idleness; that's why much fewer women are house-wives today than a century ago.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by Brennus+May 28 2005, 03:07 AM--> (Brennus @ May 28 2005, 03:07 AM)
Raisa
Who do they sell all the beauty products to? Like the world isnt full of ugly ass men!?

:lol:

Society sets up beauty standards for both sexes. Men are required to have bulging muscles and a tall height. Think about it - who do they sell all the exercise weights to? Unfortunately for us, we aren't able to go down to the supermarket and buy some "height increasin lotion."
[/b]
But if a man gets rich then women will flock to him to serve him, just like the proletariat has to serve the bourgeois, see the relation, so no this doesn't work in all cases, but their is a definate relationship.

[Brennus]

Originally posted by codyvo
But if a man gets rich then women will flock to him to serve him, just like the proletariat has to serve the bourgeois, see the relation, so no this doesn't work in all cases, but their is a definate relationship.

If a man is rich then he is bourgeois...Women flock to him because he has money, not because of his status as a gender based "sexual bourgeoisie."

[codyvo]

I don't know if you got what I meant or not, but when I said they would flock to serve him, I meant they would sexually serve him, and unless he is homosexual the same case can not be made for men flocking to him, so in that case women are the sexual bourgeois.

[LSD]

I don't know if you got what I meant or not, but when I said they would flock to serve him, I meant they would sexually serve him.

That's an oversimplification of gender relationships.

Yes, the kind of scenario you outlined does occur, but it actually speaks more about the nature of capitalism than it does about gender.

The reason that these women are "flocking" is not because the man in question can exert gender-formed social control, but can exert economic control. In short, they want the money.

But the fact is that this is a very rare relationship. For the vast majority of people, neither partner is especially rich and so it is completely unscientific to point to the oulying examples and claim that they prove your theory.

If indeed the female gender is truly comparable with the proletarian class (as would be nescessary to prove that the male gender is the "Sexual Bourgeoisie"), then it must be true for all women, or at the very least, most of them.

Showing that there is often an element of pseudo-capitalist servileness within the relationships of the super-rich ...is entirely irrelevent


unless he is homosexual the same case can not be made for men flocking to him

But the case can be made for men flocking to women.

Indeed as more and more women of means are independent and there are less and less taboos on dating, it is becomming more and more likely to see exactly that; young attractive men, flocking to "serve" rich women, mainly because they want their money.

Again, it isn't about gender, it's about capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Raisa
This isn't bourgeois like economics. You can be broke as hell and still be the sexual bourgeoisie. Because most of the time it is women who compromise for men.

That seems to me to be a fairly accurate summary of the general situation.

In which case, we should ask ourselves why women, for the most part, do not rebel against such an unequal relationship?


Who do they sell all the beauty products to? Like the world isn't full of ugly ass men!? Women are set up to obsess over how we look for men. And we do. It is sickening.

Also true...though there is a small counter-trend. Men, in increasing numbers, are opting for hair-transplants, face-lifts, and liposuction (removal of beer belly). But it's still "small change" compared to the female "beauty industry". Cosmetic companies have attempted to promote lines of make-up for men...without success.

Men do purchase a fair amount of hair coloring...but still not nearly as much as women do.


It is like we women went from being cleaning slaves to ornaments on a capitalist christmas tree...

It's much older than that; make-up kits have been discovered in Egyptian tombs at least 5,000 years old.


...who are here to please men and make them feel important to compensate for their insecurities...

The notion is wide-spread among women that the male "ego" is "extremely fragile" and must be continuously massaged to avoid complete collapse.

No doubt a little flattery lubricates every relationship...but I've observed that women are also very appreciative of men who comment favorably on their appearance -- in a non-vulgar way, of course.


...because if we don't make these tall strong old hairy boys feel like "men"....well then what kind of women are we? Probably *****es.

Men seem to be especially "sensitive" to women's criticism...and vice versa!

When she asks, "do these pants make me look fat", he knows what the answer had better be! :lol:


Sometimes this means feigning unintelligence. Sometimes it means feeling compelled to not look drastic and instead look ultra feminine. Our gender role is cute and smells real nice, but a lot of it still kind of sucks!

My impression is that the "appeal" of "female stupidity" has diminished sharply over the last half-century -- and, for that matter, "male stupidity" ain't very popular either. There appear to be more and more linguistic idioms that convey disgust and contempt for stupidity in either gender.

And the "ultra-feminine" look is seen much less often now than it once was -- surprising since I can see no reason for it not being as appealing to men as it ever was...it is cute and it does smell nice.


SO when we have our sex, which we need too, and which takes TWO to tango with....the woman is always the hoe in the end.

I think this view is also fading...though slowly.

It's been noted, by the way, that women are much "tougher" on each other than men usually are with regard to "upholding sexual standards". If a women has an ongoing sexual relationship with two (or more) men, her female "friends" are likely to give her much more shit about it than the men involved.


Even in our own magazines.....always are full of things telling us how to please men and keep a man and stuff like that.

True...women's magazine publishers have discovered a formula that strongly appeals to women readers and is extraordinarily profitable.

One may ask: why do women purchase and read these magazines? Especially when you can figure out the formula by reading as few as a half-dozen issues? (These magazines re-cycle the same material over and over again.)

Why is it so apparently "crucial" to "find a man", "please him", and "keep him"?

The corresponding literature for men is, again, "small change" by comparison. An occasional issue of a magazine directed to men may offer some advice about how to attract a woman -- buried in the pages devoted to sports, cars, hunting & fishing, etc.

Odd, isn't it?


They show us other skimpy ass women...and hardly any skimpy ass men. TV is full of half dressed women and their bodies being objectified...hardly men.

Here one runs up against something that seems to be "hard-wired" in the human nervous system...of both men and women.

When people are asked to evaluate other people in terms of "beauty" or "sex appeal", it seems that "skimpy ass women" win out...all over the world. There've been lots of studies done about this preference...and it just keeps showing up consistently -- even among people who are pre-literate and have no exposure to the western media.

Men are especially attracted to "skimpy ass women" and most women themselves prefer to be "skimpy assed" if at all possible.


But people....if genders were a class? Really now..who do you think would be the bourgeoisie?

Not much doubt about the answer to that one.

But consider: what would it take to change that? Appealing to men to "be nice" may have some effect...but not much.

Just as wage slavery will not end until all workers refuse to be wage-slaves any longer, the servitude of women can't change until women refuse to serve.

Oppression. Just say no!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RedStarOverChina]

When she asks, "do these pants make me look fat", he knows what the answer had better be!


Usually it has little to do with the pants... :lol:

[workersunity]

just because hes rich doesnt mean hes a bourgeois, if he owns some means of production that means he's a bourgeois

[RedStarOverChina]

dont mean to be a grammar Nazi but technically, means of production is everything associated with production(including labor). :D

a more accurate description would be anyone who owns capital(resources which is directly invested to generate more wealth) is considered a capitalist.

But there is a problem here: doesnt it mean a worker who owns hammer would be considered a capitalist? because his hammer(instrument of production) is used to generate wealth for him?


If your thread is regarding my title, here is my explanation:

there is a difference between Bourgeoisie(which is a class) and a bourgeois(individual who came from the Bourgeoisie class). I came from the Bourgeoisie class, which makes me a Bourgeois, but I am not a part of the exploiting class since I dont own any capital(not even any instument of production, for that matter :( )

After the Chinese Revolution, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai explained to others that in China, a group of Bourgeois does exist(Red Bourgeois, or those sympathizing the revolution), but there is no longer a bourgeoisie class conducting exploitation. (dont know if that made much sense to u)

[codyvo]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 12:44 AM

I don't know if you got what I meant or not, but when I said they would flock to serve him, I meant they would sexually serve him.

That's an oversimplification of gender relationships.

Yes, the kind of scenario you outlined does occur, but it actually speaks more about the nature of capitalism than it does about gender.


Yes it is oversimplified but I was trying to respond to another oversimplification.

Yes the situation does speak of the nature of capitalism, but since most the time it is a man in the bourgeois situation wouldn't it be fair to say that he is the sexual bourgeois, just like it would be fair to say that whites are the racial bourgeois.

[LSD]

Yes the situation does speak of the nature of capitalism, but since most the time it is a man in the bourgeois situation wouldn't it be fair to say that he is the sexual bourgeois, just like it would be fair to say that whites are the racial bourgeois.

But I don't think it would be fair to say that.

I don't think you can compare gender, or race for that matter, to class.

They are entirely seperate issues and entirely seperate forms of oppression. They must be fought, of course, but it is counterproductive to oversimplify by making everything about class.

Sexism and racism and heterosexism and capitalism are seperate methods of subjugation and control employed in today's society, they are not all "different sides of the same coin" and treating them as such only makes it more difficult to destroy them!

[Disco!]

Historically, women have been economically dependant on men. You could make an argument that men are the "household bourgeoisie" in that they own the "means of production" (ie, house) and the women work it (make food, clean, etc.). Of course this becomes less true every day, thankfully.

And now:


Originally posted by "Redstar2000"
And the "ultra-feminine" look is seen much less often now than it once was -- surprising since I can see no reason for it not being as appealing to men as it ever was...it is cute and it does smell nice.

This to me just underscores what we're talking about here. The woman's appearance is for the man in your eyes. The "ultra-feminine" look is uncomfortable, boring, and expensive, which I think has worlds more to do with why it's "seen much less often." Women have had to fight for it to be socially acceptable not to be "ultra feminine."

As well, I think you're missing the shades of Raisa's statement- that in a lot of cases, it feels like you've cut yourself out of the mating pool if you're not in a mini skirt (Raisa, sorry if I'm reading into things that aren't there...). Men, quite frankly, don't have to deal with that. Men can look like slobs and get madd chixx, and they don't feel as though they have to display themselves sexually (high heels, tight shirt, low pants, etc etc).




most women themselves prefer to be "skimpy assed" if at all possible.


Excuse me?
There is a very real difference between prefering to be "skimpy assed" and being compelled to do so. I think it's a real streach to say that the majority of women, everywhere, genuinely want to be parading themselves around like sexed-up dolls. God knows I don't.

Of course it is up to women to reject oppression for themselves. But that doesn't mean that men are absolved from any responsibility to change their own veiws. It is very difficult to rise above a lifetime of conditioning, especially if the men, in their position of priviledge, aren't going to do a damn thing to help.

Also: ErikuSz -sXe-.... man. What the hell. Other people have delt with your post pretty well, but geez.

[redwinter]

In the great majority of cases today, at least in the possessing classes, the husband is obliged to earn a living and support his family, and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy, without any need for special legal titles and privileges. Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. In the industrial world, the specific character of the economic oppression burdening the proletariat is visible in all its sharpness only when all special legal privileges of the capitalist class have been abolished and complete legal equality of both classes established. The democratic republic does not do away with the opposition of the two classes; on the contrary, it provides the clear field on which the fight can be fought out. And in the same way, the peculiar character of the supremacy of the husband over the wife in the modern family, the necessity of creating real social equality between them, and the way to do it, will only be seen in the clear light of day when both possess legally complete equality of rights. Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.

This is an excerpt from The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Friedrich Engels (emphasis added). I recommend anyone interested in digging into the question of women's oppression to check out this historic work. Most importantly, it illustrated for me the bare reality that the mode of organization of the family is conditioned by the way the economic base is run, just like any other part of the superstructure.

To respond to LSD's assertion that one cannot "compare gender, or race for that matter, to class. They are entirely seperate issues and entirely seperate forms of oppression. They must be fought, of course, but it is counterproductive to oversimplify by making everything about class": I think this is incorrect. The oppression of women and national oppression both do tie in with class struggle (I also think it's incorrect to speak of "racial" oppression: as Marxists we speak of national oppression).

Also: I think that the direction of a few of the statements I've seen on this thread is disturbing to say the least. Statements like, "Most women themselves prefer to be "skimpy assed" if at all possible," are profoundly degrading.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Disco!
The "ultra-feminine" look is uncomfortable, boring, and expensive, which I think has worlds more to do with why it's "seen much less often." Women have had to fight for it to be socially acceptable not to be "ultra feminine."

Your explanation does not sound unreasonable. Particularly the "expensive" part.


Men, quite frankly, don't have to deal with that. Men can look like slobs and get madd chixx, and they don't feel as though they have to display themselves sexually (high heels, tight shirt, low pants, etc etc).

I would surmise that if a man "looked like a slob" and nevertheless wanted to hook up with "madd chixx", he would need to display considerable wealth and the willingness to part with some of it immediately.

In my personal experience, desirable women expect the men who approach them to be neat and clean at a minimum.

Any ongoing relationship with many (perhaps most) women requires young guys to "clean up their act" (their person and their residence)...or hear about their shortcomings at unpleasant length.


There is a very real difference between preferring to be "skimpy assed" and being compelled to do so. I think it's a real stretch to say that the majority of women, everywhere, genuinely want to be parading themselves around like sexed-up dolls.

It's hard to say what "the majority of women" want -- but as noted, there are studies that indicate that women "pick out" other women who are "skimpy-assed" as being the "most attractive" and express a preference for being "skimpy-assed" themselves if that is a plausible option.

That's not the same, of course, as "parading themselves around like sexed-up dolls". Women appear to have a very broad range of personal preferences in dress...both in what they wear and when they wear it.

Men, by contrast, are very conservative in dress; I've often heard women say that "he could be a lot more attractive if he would learn how to dress".


But that doesn't mean that men are absolved from any responsibility to change their own views.

My impression is that men are "reactive" rather than "proactive" in this regard. That is, if the woman (or women) in a man's life demand that he "change his views" (or behavior), he is much more likely to actually make that change than if you were to rely on him to "just do it on his own".

Which is why each woman must decide what is acceptable in a man's behavior and what is unacceptable...and then stick to that!

Raisa pointed out in her initial post that "women do the compromising".

That has to stop!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Disco!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:51 AM
I would surmise that if a man "looked like a slob" and nevertheless wanted to hook up with "madd chixx", he would need to display considerable wealth and the willingness to part with some of it immediately.
Compared to "attractive" women, they ARE slobs. The ideal of womanhood is shaved, plucked, covered in make-up, attractive smelling, has her hair done (generally in a way more complex than a little hair gel), is wearing the season's latest fashions (which must, of course, be kept up on), and wearing heels. The man, on the other hand, needs a decent haircut, well kept facial hair (or lack thereof) and clean clothes. And I can gaurentee you that fasionable men's clothing is significantly more comfortable than women's.

And as to the "...would need to display considerable wealth and the willingness to part with some of it immediately" comment, this is deeply stereotypical and hardly describes myself or the women that I know. Yes, there are women who are interested in men solely for their money. There are also men who are interested in women solely for their tits. Are they representative of women or men as a whole? No.


It's hard to say what "the majority of women" want -- but as noted, there are studies that indicate that women "pick out" other women who are "skimpy-assed" as being the "most attractive" and express a preference for being "skimpy-assed" themselves if that is a plausible option.

Alright, how are we defining skimpy-assed? Because in my understanding it would be women wearing very little, which is generally interpreted as provocative*. By this definition, you are contridicting yourself:



That's not the same, of course, as "parading themselves around like sexed-up dolls".


Obviously there are women who genuinely enjoy wearing low cut tops, short skirts, etc. But in my experience, a lot of women do it because they feel like they need to to be attractive. To who? Men. These clothes are not practical and more or less render the wearer as a display piece.


Men, by contrast, are very conservative in dress; I've often heard women say that "he could be a lot more attractive if he would learn how to dress".

Saying that a man "should learn how to dress" is not implying that he should dress "less conservativly"- you don't see men in belly tops (at least not since the late 80s...). Most women "know how to dress" because they are expected to by men. The sheer amount of men who don't shows that that is simply not required of them.


My impression is that men are "reactive" rather than "proactive" in this regard. That is, if the woman (or women) in a man's life demand that he "change his views" (or behavior), he is much more likely to actually make that change than if you were to rely on him to "just do it on his own".

Men who know better, such as, say, Revolutionary Leftists, should simply not be propagating sexist behaviour. Obviously women should be calling out men on their behaviour, but this is not an excuse for guys to be sexist just because the women in their life haven't yelled at them about it.


Raisa pointed out in her initial post that "women do the compromising".

That has to stop!

And I agree 100%




---------------
* Do not interpret this as a "look at what she's wearing, she deserves whatever she gets" kind of statement. But it's a simple fact that women's clothing, especially the "skimpy-assed" variety, is designed to display the body sexually in a way that no men's clothing is.

[Black Dagger]

In which case, we should ask ourselves why women, for the most part, do not rebel against such an unequal relationship?

Because of a hegemonic culture? Why doesn't the working class, just 'wake up' and rebel? Surely this is a similar situation. To steal from Gramsci, the 'common sense'/'natural' values of society, the values of the bourgeoisie, and also religious values, subordinate women in a similar way to how they subordinate and culturally coerce working class people. And in this way also, the culture of consensus that has developed amongst working class people, that sees them identifying their own 'values' with the 'values' of the bourgeoisie, as the 'normal' and 'natural' values of human society, is reflected in the manufactured consent of women, both groups are conditioned to maintain the status quo by being taught to identify with its values. Women are taught their social role, look pretty, dont' be a 'whore', get a man, settle down, have children, that is the status quo.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Disco!+--> (Disco!)Alright, how are we defining skimpy-assed? Because in my understanding it would be women wearing very little, which is generally interpreted as provocative.[/b]

No, I think what Raisa meant by the expression "skimpy assed" is a woman with a relatively slender posterior...as opposed to "big assed".

I don't think Raisa was referring to the amount of clothing, nor was I.


And as to the "...would need to display considerable wealth and the willingness to part with some of it immediately" comment, this is deeply stereotypical and hardly describes myself or the women that I know.

That's in reference to your "slob" remark. Most women would not be attracted to a "slob"...but some would be willing to tolerate him if the money was good.


Black Dagger
Because of a hegemonic culture?

Well sure...that's "ok" as an answer to the question, but why do hegemonic cultures work?

And why don't they work "perfectly"? If the theory of "hegemonic culture" was valid, then why does dissent and rebellion emerge at all?

Random chance?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Disco!]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 29 2005, 06:28 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 29 2005, 06:28 AM)
Originally posted by Disco!@
Alright, how are we defining skimpy-assed? Because in my understanding it would be women wearing very little, which is generally interpreted as provocative.

No, I think what Raisa meant by the expression "skimpy assed" is a woman with a relatively slender posterior...as opposed to "big assed".

I don't think Raisa was referring to the amount of clothing, nor was I.
[/b]

"Raisa"

They show us other skimpy ass women...and hardly any skimpy ass men.


This then either means:

a) Women in magazines are less clothed than men

or

b) Women in magazines have asses that are smaller than the asses of the men in magazines.


?

Hopefully Raisa will show up and clear this all up...

[Black Dagger]

Well sure...that's "ok" as an answer to the question,

Got a better one? :P



but why do hegemonic cultures work?

Well, i think i explained (or at least touched on the answer) in my last post. Hegemonic culture(s) 'work', because they are designed to manufacture consensus. They do so by conditioning people to identify with their opressors and their 'values', to view the status quo as 'normal' and 'natural'. 'Capitalism is natural', 'greed is human nature', 'communism won't work because humans are inherently greedy' and so forth. These ideas subordinate dissent to the status quo by delegitimising them in the eyes/minds of the opressed, the status quo (capitalism, wage slavery, worker-boss dichotomy etc) is 'natural' after all, radicially changing that paradigm makes little 'sense' (at first), to the ideologically conditioned.



And why don't they work "perfectly"? If the theory of "hegemonic culture" was valid, then why does dissent and rebellion emerge at all?

I don't think gramscian ideas work 'perfectly', but no ideas do, it is an abstract analysis, there's no data (as far as i know) to support these assertions, but as a general concept i think it definately has value, that is- it makes sense to me. It is one idea, what other ideas have emerged to explain the lack of class consciousness in advanced capitalist countries?

As to why dissent and rebellion emerge at all, i'll give that a go. As tools, economic, political and cultural coercion serve to maintain a 'happy' veneer on capitalist society, allowing people to accept their domination, eat shit and say 'thank you sir!'. Because the material reality of life in a capitalist society is quite blatantly not one of 'trickle down', co-prosperity, equal opportunity, or the land of the 'boot-strap' people, there is a limit to the extent to which ideological brain-washing can 'blind' you, or at the very least, there are clearly times when the 'true' nature of society becomes more apparent to an individual or class (broadly). Losing your job, or your partner/parents getting laid off, getting mistreated at work, corruption/fraud/'mis-management' scandals breaking in the political and 'corporate' worlds, recessions, depressions and so forth, these can provide powerful shocks to the legitimacy of the status-quo. Are these not events/times when a high or higher class consciousness is more likely? (patricularly the latter two).

Because cultural hegemony is trying to mask the reality of opression and exploitation that capitalism creates, there is always the possibility this mask will be removed, however temporality, and it is a testament to the strength of this hegemony that despite the curtain being dropped over and over again, people can be convinced that these events and crises are unconnected, isolated, that 'things will get better'. People don't see things from a wider point of view, they don't see systemic problems, the problem as articulated by the status quo is not 'capitalism', but individuals, so people continue to accept it.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 09:03 AM

But people....if genders were a class? Really now..who do you think would be the bourgeoisie?

But the problem is that genders are not a class.

Projecting them as such does nothing to address the very real problem of sexism.

While both are features of contemporary society, sexism and class are entirely seperate issues. While both are social creations to be sure, this does not mean that they are of similar nature, nor that they have similar characteristics. It certainly does not mean that they have similar solutions.

Rather it is along side it. Complementing it at times, contrasting with it at others. Indeed in many ways sexism contrasts with capitalism; it creates solidarity between bourgeois and workers, it reduces the power of feamle bourgeoisie, etc..

Sexism is an independent discrimination, and while it has some interesting historiagraphical ties to capitalism (the issue of inheretence for example), it is not capitalism.

As with racism and heterosexism, sexism is a prejeduce based on immutatble characteristics. That does not define class! The bouregoisie are not a "kind" of person, they are a class of persons, and the proletarians are not discriminated against, they are exploited

You point specfically to the seuxal double standard as well as the strong focus on the female body in the modern media. The first is a complex issue that largely has to do with religion and not capitalism. The second is merely a reflection of the pre-existing gender discrimination.

There's one thing you can say for the "market", it knows who's got the money!

But neither of your examples proves your argument that gender discrimination is comparable to class.

The proletarians are expoited because their labour is used by another to enrich themselves.

Women are exploited because they are the victims of antiquated sexual and social stereotypes that cast them as weaker / "purer" / frailer. Those are two very different problems and pretending that they are one in the same accomplishes nothing.


"To be sure, the male gender is the enfranchised one and there can be no doubt that women are subjugated, but that does not mean that that subjugation is parallel to the subjugation of the working class. "

You like to think so, wouldnt you.

What ever subjugation the male working class is subjugated to, is often passed right down to the females whether they are working or not, to clean up and make better.

"We need to deal with sexism, but let's do so rationaly and deliberately without hyperbole, exageration, or mischaracterization."

Im not exaggerating shit, mister. Im glad you think I am.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 29 2005, 12:54 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 29 2005, 12:54 AM)
Raisa
This isn't bourgeois like economics. You can be broke as hell and still be the sexual bourgeoisie. Because most of the time it is women who compromise for men.

That seems to me to be a fairly accurate summary of the general situation.



Who do they sell all the beauty products to? Like the world isn't full of ugly ass men!? Women are set up to obsess over how we look for men. And we do. It is sickening.

Also true...though there is a small counter-trend. Men, in increasing numbers, are opting for hair-transplants, face-lifts, and liposuction (removal of beer belly). But it's still "small change" compared to the female "beauty industry". Cosmetic companies have attempted to promote lines of make-up for men...without success.

Men do purchase a fair amount of hair coloring...but still not nearly as much as women do.


It is like we women went from being cleaning slaves to ornaments on a capitalist christmas tree...




...who are here to please men and make them feel important to compensate for their insecurities...

The notion is wide-spread among women that the male "ego" is "extremely fragile" and must be continuously massaged to avoid complete collapse.




...because if we don't make these tall strong old hairy boys feel like "men"....well then what kind of women are we? Probably *****es.

Men seem to be especially "sensitive" to women's criticism...and vice versa!

When she asks, "do these pants make me look fat", he knows what the answer had better be! :lol:


Sometimes this means feigning unintelligence. Sometimes it means feeling compelled to not look drastic and instead look ultra feminine. Our gender role is cute and smells real nice, but a lot of it still kind of sucks!


And the "ultra-feminine" look is seen much less often now than it once was -- surprising since I can see no reason for it not being as appealing to men as it ever was...it is cute and it does smell nice.


SO when we have our sex, which we need too, and which takes TWO to tango with....the woman is always the hoe in the end.



It's been noted, by the way, that women are much "tougher" on each other than men usually are with regard to "upholding sexual standards". If a women has an ongoing sexual relationship with two (or more) men, her female "friends" are likely to give her much more shit about it than the men involved.


Even in our own magazines.....always are full of things telling us how to please men and keep a man and stuff like that.

True...women's magazine publishers have discovered a formula that strongly appeals to women readers and is extraordinarily profitable.

Especially when you can figure out the formula by reading as few as a half-dozen issues? (These magazines re-cycle the same material over and over again.)

Why is it so apparently "crucial" to "find a man", "please him", and "keep him"?

The corresponding literature for men is, again, "small change" by comparison. An occasional issue of a magazine directed to men may offer some advice about how to attract a woman -- buried in the pages devoted to sports, cars, hunting & fishing, etc.

Odd, isn't it?


They show us other skimpy ass women...and hardly any skimpy ass men. TV is full of half dressed women and their bodies being objectified...hardly men.

Here one runs up against something that seems to be "hard-wired" in the human nervous system...of both men and women.

When people are asked to evaluate other people in terms of "beauty" or "sex appeal", it seems that "skimpy ass women" win out...all over the world. There've been lots of studies done about this preference...and it just keeps showing up consistently -- even among people who are pre-literate and have no exposure to the western media.




But people....if genders were a class? Really now..who do you think would be the bourgeoisie?

Not much doubt about the answer to that one.

But consider: what would it take to change that? Appealing to men to "be nice" may have some effect...but not much.



Oppression. Just say no!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
"In which case, we should ask ourselves why women, for the most part, do not rebel against such an unequal relationship?"

Most of the time we dont see it that way. We think that is the way it is cause we seen our mothers like that with our fathers, and such and it is what we feel we need to do.

"It's much older than that; make-up kits have been discovered in Egyptian tombs at least 5,000 years old."

We have always had to look pretty, and everyone wants to look pretty but that doesnt really get at what I mean. After womens liberation we didnt so much have to be house wifes anymore and stay home all day, but we still are like I said...

Ornaments. Do ugly women sell cars?

no.

"No doubt a little flattery lubricates every relationship...but I've observed that women are also very appreciative of men who comment favorably on their appearance -- in a non-vulgar way, of course"

This is so much beyond complementing on peoples appearance. This is things like....doing all the house work even though you go to work too, being expected to serve him dinner or clean up his shit or else he feels like shit or under apreciated....this is how there are so many girls who have given head so much more then they ever got it in order to "keep a man" .
In the end it is said that women do more work then men because we take care of children, clean, cook, more then men do and then we go to work too.

"My impression is that the "appeal" of "female stupidity" has diminished sharply over the last half-century -- and, for that matter, "male stupidity" ain't very popular either. There appear to be more and more linguistic idioms that convey disgust and contempt for stupidity in either gender."

You are very optimistic and content. It kinda discourages me because you are a real revolutionary thinker.
And you aprieciate if I talk about big things like communism and class semantics, and contiousness......but alot of men do not really like that, theyll get kind of intimidated....and alot of girls know that. So many men will never really know how smart their girlfriends are. Alot of men dont like us to talk too much smarter then them. Just smart enough for them to be able to say "my girlfriends not a dumb ass!"

"I think this view is also fading...though slowly. "

See thats the thing. SLowly. But it didnt yet....why even say so? It is still very prominent, but you are adressing it in such a happy way. Like I should be glad for it......and its one of the most sexualy bourgeois things about men still today, that makes women live in guilt and gives us issues. And you focus on how little it is going away. Geez, I can tell its not your problem! I bet it was men who invented the word hoe out of being sexually bourgeois!

"One may ask: why do women purchase and read these magazines?"

Thats not one asking, ITs you, and you ask alot of questions like that I see. Why not look into our common lack of confidence that sells us all this shit, and ask us where it comes from...it sure as hell isnt from us being ontop of anything......

"Men are especially attracted to "skimpy ass women" and most women themselves prefer to be "skimpy assed" if at all possible."

And there aint nothnig wrong with dressing skimpy, it is a beautiful thing. Lets not be prudish, we have wonderful bodies...but we are more then just wonderful bodies.

"Just as wage slavery will not end until all workers refuse to be wage-slaves any longer, the servitude of women can't change until women refuse to serve."

Im not sure how feasable that really is in a class society, but you are right redstar. Still as long as men are treated like commodities, the women that are historically under them will be too- I tend to think.

Someone change my mind before I take off my top!!!!!!!! :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

I do not understand why any man with even an ounce of love for a woman could allow himself to exploit her and turn her into some servant for his use. I would much rather love a woman who was intelligent, independant and equal to myself.

[redstar2000]

First, Raisa, let me apologize for misunderstanding something that you said. When you referred to "skimpy-assed women" in the media, I thought you were referring to their appearance (body-type), not how much clothing they were wearing.

It's thought that only about 5% of all women actually "look like" the image of women that the media presents to us.

I haven't owned a dummyvision set in 25 years...so I have no idea what women are wearing these days on its programs -- but I take it from your statement that they aren't wearing much.

There is, I've read, a cable television news program in Canada that carries this all the way: the women who read the news do so entirely naked.


Originally posted by Raisa
Most of the time we don't see it that way. We think that is the way it is cause we seen our mothers like that with our fathers, and such and it is what we feel we need to do.

That's a very strong point; there is so much crap that we learn from our parents -- what it "means" to be a "real woman/real man" -- that we have to unlearn.

In particular, female children are taught that "being female means caring for others"...an ethic of servitude that's very hard to escape.

Women are taught to always ask themselves -- "am I being selfish?" -- when considering their own needs and wants.


In the end it is said that women do more work then men because we take care of children, clean, cook, more then men do and then we go to work too.

That is true. The number of men who are willing to "carry a fair share" of the domestic burdens is probably still quite small...though again growing. When boys grow up being "taken care of" by their mothers, they conclude "that's what women are supposed to do".

Modern young women seem to me to be much less willing to put up with that...so I think it will decline.


And you appreciate if I talk about big things like communism and class semantics, and consciousness......but alot of men do not really like that, they'll get kind of intimidated....and alot of girls know that. So many men will never really know how smart their girlfriends are. Alot of men don't like us to talk too much smarter then them. Just smart enough for them to be able to say "my girlfriend's not a dumb ass!"

I yield to the voice of experience on this one...I have to assume that you're right.

But let me ask you this: if a young woman has to "dumb herself down" to appeal to a particular young man, why should she want to do that? Specifically, why wouldn't she rather be alone than put up with that crap?

Women seem to suffer much more than men from the delusion that "any relationship is better than no relationship". And consequently, as you said in your initial post, "women make all the compromises".


See that's the thing. Slowly. But it didn't yet....why even say so? It is still very prominent, but you are addressing it in such a happy way.

That's a by-product of my age; I've lived long enough to see things change...sometimes very drastically. It may sound difficult to believe, but the public status of women has actually risen quite a bit over the last 50 years.

And I am happy to see that...especially since I think it will continue to rise. All the material factors that I can see point in that direction and nothing points against it except the rabid rhetoric of the Christian fascists.

A revolution would speed up the process quite a bit...but it's going to happen anyway.


Geez, I can tell it's not your problem! I bet it was men who invented the word hoe...

Well, truth to say, it really isn't "my problem" -- there's no reason for me to pretend otherwise. Of course it was men who invented the word "hoe" -- and its real meaning is not sexual but rather refers to a woman who refuses to acknowledge male authority. Disobedient women are "hoes" and "*****es" because they won't do what men tell them to do.

Since I seek no personal authority over any woman, female disobedience is not an issue with me. Besides, I rather like it when women refuse to obey men -- my sympathies are always with those who rebel rather than those who submit.

But that's just me. :)


That's not one asking, IT'S you, and you ask alot of questions like that I see.

Yes, I do. Partly because I'm curious about the answers that you and other women may have to these questions...and partly because I hope you and other women will start asking yourselves the same questions.

Why do women in large numbers purchase magazines that attack their self-esteem, articulate a paradigm of female subservience, and try to sell them a whole load of overpriced worthless crap?

As a man, I could guess...but women know. Something gets women to take money out of their purses and hand it over in exchange for copies of these publications: what is it?

All women don't do it...but many and perhaps most do. Why?

Imagine if, as a man, someone tried to sell me a magazine that was anything like the magazines sold to women -- a publication that told me, in effect, that I "needed to look" like a male model; that I "needed" to have the "right" clothes, the "right" make-up, the "right" hair style, etc., to "succeed" with women; that I needed to learn the "secrets" of manipulating women to get one into a relationship with me and keep her there; etc., etc., etc.

Would I buy it? Would any man buy it? Who knows, perhaps some men would buy it...but I think the number would be extremely small.

We men proceed largely on the assumption that if a woman wishes to become part of our lives, they must be attracted to "the way we really are".

And my question is: why haven't women reached the same conclusion?

We no longer live in an era in which people "must" marry and have children (I was born in that era!) or "must" be attached to another person "no matter what".

A proletarian must have a job in order to survive...that's a crucial difference between capitalist oppression and other, pre-capitalist forms of oppression.

But one does not "have to have" a spouse and/or children any more than one "has to have" a religion.

A person may be "taught" from childhood that they "have to have" those things and they may be bombarded with propaganda in the media that they "have to have" those things. (That's the cultural hegemony argument.)

But objectively speaking, it ain't so!

There are some economic factors to consider...one could call them the remnants of patriarchy.

Married women still have, as a rule, a higher standard-of-living than single women. Unmarried women with children have the worst standard-of-living of any demographic sector. This means that having a child is the biggest mistake an unmarried woman can make!

On the other hand, it's known that unmarried women without children earn about $0.96 for every $1.00 that a man earns in the same occupation -- very close to parity. (That's an average for the United States -- it varies by occupation, of course.)

So there remains a material incentive for women to get men to marry them...especially if they want children. But the "smart bet" for women under capitalism is to remain unmarried and childless.

That's a huge change from the way things were just a half-century ago.

As a Marxist, I expect social behavior to follow this change in objective material conditions. I expect more and more women to make "the smart bet".

That does seem to be happening...but (your least favorite word) slowly.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bunk]

naked news is excellent. :blink:

[RedStarOverChina]

:D I saw that show once too.

Only once, I swear...

[RedStarOverChina]

So, RS2K, would you agree that the inequal distribution of wealth between sexes is the root of women's social status? Coz thats what I believe in strongly (even though i know u are not a Dialectical Materialist)

[RedAnarchist]

Women Risking Health For Others (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4583671.stm)

Evidence that shows that society brings women up to care for others.

[coda]

<>

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+--> (RedStarOverChina)So, RS2K, would you agree that the unequal distribution of wealth between sexes is the root of women&#39;s social status?[/b]

Well sure...I mean it has to be that way in a social order where status correlates with wealth so highly.

All a "hoe" or a "*****" has to do is win the lottery...and her status will skyrocket.

Same for us guys&#33;


Indigo
He never said a word about my driving after that.

Sometimes you have to make a loud stand to end the discrimination.

And that is how it&#39;s done&#33; :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Jazzy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:35 AM




Who do they sell all the beauty products to? Like the world isnt full of ugly ass men&#33;? Women are set up to obsess over how we look for men. And we do. It is sickening. Id probably be the same way if it wasnt for my beliefs. Now I look good for what I stand for, because I think I stand for a good thing and I wont disgrace it. It is like we women went from being cleaning slaves to ornaments on a capitalist christmas tree who are here to please men and make them feel important to compensate for their insecurities (and this was even worse in the fifties and all when men were the only ones making the money..then they were REALLY insecure) becasue if we dont make these tall strong old hairy boys feel like "men"....well then what kind of women are we? Probably *****es.
Sometimes this means feigning unintelligence. Sometimes it means feeling compelled to not look drastic and instead look ultra feminine. Our gender role is cute and smells real nice, but alot of it still kind of sucks&#33;

Women do their thing and get called a hoe. You know what a hoe is? Its a thing that gets dug into the ground. Like a little shovel. And shovels are dirty cause they were all up in the dirt...come on now&#33;
SO when we have our sex, which we need too, and which takes TWO to tango with....the woman is always the hoe in the end. No criticism for a man who would sleep with a hoe. A dirty woman. Well, look at the world. What does she need to be clean for all of a sudden? ... The man of course. Just like you want a clean car.

Even in our own magazines.....always are full of things telling us how to please men and keep a man and stuff like that. Hardly ever stuff about sexism or any of that shit. They show us other skimpy ass women...and hardly any skimpy ass men. Tv is full of half dressed women and their bodies being objectified...hardly men. And it just looks sometimes like it is a man&#39;s world...


Women have been oppressed by men for centuries, but as someone already said, why in the year 2005 are we still letting them control us? Why do we buy into the marketing gimick, that if we have the right colored eyeshadow or lips that are shiny and glossy enough, we will get any man we want? Why do we even care if we get a man? Why do we even care what his "pleasure points" are as Raisa already stated pretaining to the supposed "women&#39;s magazines"? Why don&#39;t they write articles about WOMENS "pleasure points"? Us women as a whole need to start focusing more on oursleves as HUMANS rahter than some mans sex toy.

"Sexualityis quite falsely thought to be an animal characteristic, despite the obvious fact that man is the most sexually active of the animals, and the only one who has sex independently of the instinctual reproductive drive. In the popular imagination hairiness is like furriness, an index of bestiality, and such an indication of aggressive sexuality. Men cultivate it, just as they are encouraged to develop competitive and aggressive instincts, women suppress it, just as they oppress all aspects of their vigor and libido. If they do not feel sufficient revulsion for their body hair themselves, others will direct them to depilate themselves. In extreme cases, women shave or pluck their pubic area, so as to seem even more sexless and infantile. Mind you, if even Freud could consider that pubic hair was a screen supplied by some sort of physiological modesty, this shaving could also figure as a revolt. The efforts made to eradicate all smell from the female body are part of the same suppression of fancied animality. Nowadays it is not enough to neutralize perspiration and breath odors; women are warned in every women&#39;s magazine of the horror of vaginal odor, which is assumed to be utterly repellent. Men who do not want their women shaved and deodorized into complete tastlessness are powerless against women&#39;s own distaste for their bodies."
From the book "The Female Eunuch" by Germaine Greer


"She was created to be the toy of man, his rattle, and it must jingle in his ears whenever, dismissing reason, he chooses to be amused."
Mary Wollstonecraft
A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792, pg. 66

[zshzn]

Raisa, what do you plan to do about this social inbalance, as you view it?

[Raisa]

Very hard to say, man.

Its so deep rooted in our societies, I am not sure how far we can come along trying to take care of this in such a class society where this sexist mentality is prevalant, and is making people alot of money&#33;

But for one, if you are a man and a communist- you should really think about your own thoughts and have yourself.......a cultural revolution of the mind. Tear down those cheavanistic thoughts and set them a blaze, because you wont be needing them as a revolutionary man&#33;

1)Evaluate yourself

Many communists were born into affluent families, and re-evaluated who they are, cleansing their minds of the reactionary thoughts of their class, to become revolutionary thinkers. And I believe that you can do the same. Just becuase you are from the sexual bourgeoisie, doesnt mean you got to be sexually bourgeois.


See yourself as the Sexual Bourgeoisie. Look in the mirror even and relfect on it&#33; It is a disgusiting word&#33; You dont wanna be no sexual bourgeoisie&#33; Thats like being a damn hypocrite, and an insult to our struggle&#33; Its reactionary.

-So ask yourself, "When I think sexual bourgeoisie, which things come to mind that I do, and which thoughts come to mind that I think?" Chances are a good amount of it is in you already. It is instilled. You are set up to be the sexual bourgeoisie.

You will see images of women through out your life that will subcontiously make you that way, as women will see images of themselves that bring them down and push you up there to your sexually bourgeois throne. But when you realize you are there, you must stop sitting in it and kick it down&#33;

Sometimes we realize something is wrong and we dont even know how much of our thought process it has already contaminated.
We need to admit we think these things- just to yourself is fine...and we need to evaluate each thought.

Secondly....there is an issue about our whole movement.

Class struggle is important foremost because economics influence everything, but:

2)The Communists Need to Spend More time Reguarding Feminism and Racial issues.

I notice that alot of people here, for example, will spend a good minute talking about class struggle but they get uncomfortable talking about racial or women&#39;s issues. Listen, it doesnt matter if you are a man, and it doesnt matter if you are white...you are not guilty for being born how you are. Still- being a white male in this society gives you a better chance of having inherantly counter revolutionary thoughts.
For a good part of history, society has been working in favor of the white male, over the black male and the female of any color. Society has been dominated by bourgeois white men for a really long time. People who are in more favorable social situations like this tend to see less problems then people who arent, and this can interfere with revolutionary thinking. Big deal yall&#33; Don&#39;t cry.

What we need to do, is look these issues in the face&#33; Reguardless of who you are, or if they directly effect you or not. This is how we defeat reactionary concepts amongst and inside ourselves. We just be real. Communists got to be real.

It isnt as simple as class struggle. We need to discuss this sociology from a shameless revolutionary perspective. Our capitalist society has issues and we need to dissect all of it. Not just cut open the skin and think we fully understand when there are a bunch of things inside clicking and ticking that we arent really looking into. All this sociology beyond simple class struggle analysis.......is understanding how capitalism effects different groups of people, and this is very important for truly revolutionary thought.

Because like it or not, you ARE the vanguard. Even if you are on your own. I dont mean it like the Bolsheviks....I mean it as in, you are probably one of the only truly contious minds on your block, or your school or wherever the hell you are, doing your thing- and when you try to awaken the others you should understand where they are coming from.

That is all I got for now. Keep it real, people&#33;

[&#39;Discourse Unlimited&#39;]

Fascinating discussion. :)



That&#39;s a very strong point; there is so much crap that we learn from our parents -- what it "means" to be a "real woman/real man" -- that we have to unlearn.


RedStar, I wonder, have you read "Gender and the Politics of History", by Joan Scott? A most brilliant book, in which she tackles the issue of &#39;gender identity&#39;, and argues that society constructs acceptable &#39;norms&#39; for men and women... The role of the "real man" and "real woman" will change over time, as dictated by political / economic interests. This is a gross simplification, of course - the article itself is infinitely more compelling&#33;

[redstar2000]

No, I haven&#39;t...and my public library doesn&#39;t have it. :(

This is very often the case with radical scholarship...only university libraries have copies (and by no means all of them). Public libraries mostly confine themselves to popular accounts or mainstream (bourgeois) scholarship.

It&#39;s always a bit of a shock when someone recommends a good treatment of a subject on this board and the public library actually has a copy. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:59 AM
Imagine if, as a man, someone tried to sell me a magazine that was anything like the magazines sold to women -- a publication that told me, in effect, that I "needed to look" like a male model; that I "needed" to have the "right" clothes, the "right" make-up, the "right" hair style, etc., to "succeed" with women; that I needed to learn the "secrets" of manipulating women to get one into a relationship with me and keep her there; etc., etc., etc.

Would I buy it? Would any man buy it? Who knows, perhaps some men would buy it...but I think the number would be extremely small.
Actually there are a couple magazines like this - I think one&#39;s called Men&#39;s Health.

But, yes, it&#39;s a new phenomenon, and much smaller than comparable women&#39;s magazines.

The difference comes from the whole social structure including family structure, I think. Exactly how is probably pretty complicated. There is an economic pressure to "get a man" as well as indoctrination from childhood. But that&#39;s probably just part of it.

You&#39;re right, I think, that increasing economic independence of women is tending to undermine all this crap to someextent.

[Eastside Revolt]

I&#39;m pretty tired right now but i&#39;ll post anyhow.

Well it&#39;s seems to me here that we&#39;ve bassically established that men&#39;s position as the sexual bourgeoisie is a slowly whithering one.

What I don&#39;t think many of the males here have adressed is what as males can we do to help it?

I am personally stumped on this because it doesn&#39;t matter how many of your boys you preach to. It doesn&#39;t matter how many women&#39;s eyes you try to open. People just keep playing themselves.

[realist022]

The whole idea that women buy make up and diet because of men is true. Not because they are forced to though. Alot of you fuck heads are such victims. Ignoring the nature of humans is the biggest problem with alot of leftist theories. Women do alot of shit because of men, but men do just as much shit for women. The sex drive in humans causes this. It is natural. Look at what birds do for each other. Male birds wear the make up. This just happens to be how humans evolved. Woman are weaker than men phyically on the whole. It is what it is&#33; Men and women are different. One isn&#39;t better than the other just different. You say that men have to initiate everything. Uusually that is true. I&#39;ve had women come up to me and be sexually blatant. The truth is is that women decide on sex. They usually pick and chose. More so than men. A beautiful woman is catered to. Is that a bad thing? If your a guy that doesn&#39;t look that good and you don&#39;t have a bank roll, it is. Try asking the pretty woman though. I&#39;m sure she loves being in the position of power. Incentive is a motherfucker, huh? People wanna look good. People want money. It&#39;s natural. Everyone wants something more. Going on a diet is just trying to be healthy. Looking good reflects that your healthy. Hence make up&#33; Just trying to accentuate the beauty or the healthy. Quite denying reality&#33; Quite denying psychology&#33; Quite denying nature&#33; Communism is dead and will never work&#33; I&#39;m a working man and hate greed, but it drives shit. Why do you think your on the fucking internet. Someone had the incentive to create the computer. Capitalism is good. Greed is what sucks.

[RedStarMilitia]

Don&#39;t forget - gender and sex are two different things, sex is male and female gender is masculinity and femininity.

[*Hippie*]

But are those "differences" you believe nature or nurture? Obviously those differences are culturally conditioned and isn&#39;t our responsibility to tear down those expectations we have of men and women? Noone wants be stereotyped or put into a role by society. That is repressive. I don&#39;t want to do something because I am female, I want to do something because I just want to, whether that is considered "masculine" or "feminine" has little influence on me.