The Post (Liberal) Feminist Condition.

[Monty Cantsin]

Ok this is the first draft here, so help is appreciated. It’s a pretty big topic to cover so I’d was wondering if people could help me balance it out by giving me sources and points that should be incorporated into the general argument of the essay. Though if you just simply disagree or agree I’d like to hear that too – constructive criticism would be good. yer so i do plan on editing this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Post (Liberal) Feminist Condition.

“They’ll throw the book at you in court. She’s the mother-the female. She’s got the tits. They’ll crush you.” Sandor Himmelstein in “Herzog” by Saul Bellow.

The narrative of Bellow’s novel depicts a middle aged philosophy professor Moses Herzog unluckily in love and on the edge descending into mental illness. Two broken marriages and estranged children he feels the latter estrangement as death. Escaping from the pain into the arms of women he uses for sex, objectified he then begins to despise them. Though he remains conflicted on wether or not to remarry to a new lover he withdraws yet again on a holiday. Catching a train from New York to the sea side or rather lakeside he reminisces upon his married life and the break up with Madeleine. Herzog on this trip Wrote letters to friends, public figures such as Heidegger about existential questions summarizing points of disagreement, to acquaintances inquiring about their motives and actions in his personal life. While staying with friends he hears them out as to their opinions of the divorce and how he should move on. A reoccurring theme is blame; logically responsibility is assigned proportionally to those with the power and agency to make dissections. Because of his phallus he is considered responsible for decisions taken during the marriage, most of which were taken to pamper to Madeleine’s needs. Herzog also encounters a naive Puritanism which considers that Petty-bourgeois women marry for love and are totally loyal to their husbands. Unless of course as with this case she no longer loves him, this conception represents an illusion of innocence which cloaks Madeleine’s infidelity and cunning. This of course means that because of traditional gender roles and stereotypes Herzog is a scapegoat getting the short end of the stick both in financial sense and in child custody. Thereafter Bellow’s novel progresses throughout which Herzog’s story gender roles continue as a central theme.

This is but one representation of Gender within literature published in 1964 on the eve of second wave feminism. This is a philosophy of gender equality from a feminocentric point of view. Therefore it ignores gender issues that oppress men and view society as a hegemony of male dominance i.e. patriarchy. The French existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir wrote in her 1949 book “The Second Sex” on the issues of patriarchy and gender inequality. Drawing heavily upon Frederick Engels’ 1884 work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, while accepting the prerequisite of economic autonomy for women liberation and simultaneously class liberation she rejected the perceived ‘economic monism’ of Engels as representing only one sphere of women’s oppression(1). Second wave feminism greatly influenced by Beauvoir (2) took upon itself the task of gaining equal rights in the workplace. This step took struggles for gender equality into the economic sphere of society which has been successful in gaining equal rights but not necessarily equal representation in work place (Motherhood is often responsible but also residual gender discrimination). Radical feminism while associated with the second wave was overshadowed by liberal feminism which wished to attain equality with unfree men.

Cretin varieties of second wave feminism retain a type of quasi-phallocentricism in that it affords the notion of patriarchy to much weight, universality and neglect the women’s agency in her own creation. The privileging of males over females within societies came about largely when men started to control the higher yielding means of production during what we now term the Neolithic revolution. Women’s labour was domesticated while the male roles were more propionate. Female contributions to society were and are respected but they became less and less independent. Beauvoir supported this historical materialist thesis elucidated by Engles though she criticised Engles because self-admittedly he didn’t have the information to bridge the gap in knowledge of transition from primitive tribalism to class society. This development and the continued development and accumulation of private property led to modern capitalism in which the main axes of power are not based upon a phallus but on control of private property and its lubricant money. We do not live under a patriarchy but under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisies. Gender inequality is not essential to capitalism; therefore if we attain gender equality within capitalism it will amount to an equality of oppression among individuals not of the bourgeoisies (i.e. class oppression will still remain). This has been a critical failure of liberal feminism, its inability to deal with issues of class and capitalism in anything more then a tokenistic manner.

Liberal feminism may not have transcended class domination and capitalism. But there have been advances on other issues and continued relevance in others. In the sphere of sexuality they combated Victorian ideals that women are sexually passive and the Freudian psychoanalysis that was predicated on male chauvinism (i.e. penis envy and the Electra complex (3). The communist revolutionary Alexandra Kollontai leader of the ‘workers opposition’ faction within the old Bolsheviks held the 'glass-of-water' theory. This theory held that the fulfilment of one sexual desires should be as easy as getting a glass of water. The attainment of such a state is a necessary step in women’s and men’s liberation. The old Christian Puritanism of the cardinal sin is no longer a fetish of western society enforcing moral beliefs on others in their private life. Sex-negative feminist disagree with sexual freedom being equitable because they view all heterosexual sex or cretin practices as inherently an oppression of the female (i.e. prostitution). Beauvoir put forward the idea that a female prostitute is actually a truly liberated woman. That the male only has an illusion of power and that in fact it’s her who has him. The prostitute female or male is not powerless but not all powerful, the two individuals are subject to the same conditions of relationship of any commodity exchange, alienated and a mere object for the other. Pornography is also debated within the feminist movement and of course there are the sex-negativities and sex-positives feminists. The interesting aspect of this sub-issue is the phenomena of ‘porn for the masses by the masses’ swapped over the internet subverting commodity cultures exploitation of human sexuality.

Some progressive changes are being challenged. There is a re-emergence of reactionaries who want to abolish the women’s right for self-determination of their own life and body. Thus the right for abortion is back on the agenda in many countries, Australia to the U.S.A and abortion rights are even unattained in Ireland and Poland. This push has come from Christian fundamentalists and politicians wishing to gain from a growing demographic. For the feminists and pro-feminists this a fundamental issue that can be dealt with independent of revolutionary agitation. Within the issue of equality of the sexes there has been the neglecting of the males right to choose. When two consenting adults engage in a sexual relationship they both make a choice to do so. On the advent of a pregnancy the women as the right to choice between keeping the baby and having an abortion, this leaves the male without a choice. If opinions between the couples differ on a course of action then the women rightly has the choice over her own body. But the male should not be held to pay for her decision of having a baby when he would have chosen an abortion. Thus if a women is given the right to choose so should the male. But as it stands now males have to pay child endowment even if the choice of having a baby was not theirs, therefore their lives are coerced because of inequities in the law and the choice of another. The details of this arrangement seem problematic but it is an arrangement fundamental to the rights of both sexes and gender egalitarianism.

Men have also been discriminated against by the institutions of government in the realm of family law and custody issues. Until of late in Australia after devoice the family court autonomically started with custody at 80% for the mother and 20% the father, which is discrimination based on sex. This has recently been changed to an even footing of 50/50 custody with the family law court under pressure from male rights advocates or ‘Masculists’ (4). In the Australian court system sex discrimination is still the norm with the mother being given full custody right even when employed full time; men on the other hand are only given the same opportunity if employed part-time. Because of the inequities in the law women initiate the majority of divorcees under the belief that they will retain full custody, many Masculists have argued that men are keept in unhappy marriages because they fear losing contact with their children. The Sex Discrimination Commission of Australia advocates the discrimination based on the idea that equal custody has to start with equal parenting when the marriage is still intact. This analysis neglects the underlying fact that most Australian families need a primary ‘breadwinner’ which often falls to the male. Therefore precluding him from the early bonds a mother forms with the children while he works long hours outside the home. In Australia there is a push on to increase paid maternity leave for women. But importantly to address the imbalance of parentage because of social expectation and economic necessity parental leave should be granted to the fathers. This is the current system established in Sweden with both working parents allowed 16 months payed paternity leave per child. This has the effect of circumventing the normal alienation of the ‘minority’ parent (normally the father) from the process of child rehearing. This too would be a progressive change but is problematic in attainment even in first world countries which have socially conservative and neo-liberal economic parties dominating federal governments in the U.S.A, Australia and Germany.

Many feminist (i.e. radical feminists) do not recognise male gender discriminations or grievances, defining affluent capitalism as patriarchal. According to radical feminists females that take leadership position within affluent capitalism (or undeveloped) are taking on the role of a dominate male, i.e. becoming a patriarch. Patriarchy is a society that preferences males over females. But for radical feminists patriarchy has nothing to do with who is in a hegemonic role because people taking positions of leadership are behaving in a male manner. Which means the radical feminist greatest concern is hierarchy. Radical feminist such as Valerie Solanas did not classify society as a matriarchy (a society that preferences females over males which is still a hierarchy) because she viewed negative aspects of society including the capitalist commodity system as characteristics of the male sex. Advocating the mass murder of males in her “S.C.U.M manifesto” (1968) which means society for cutting up men. This form of feminist doesn’t advocate gender equality but rather female chauvinism. The advocates for mass murder of men represent an extreme fringe of even the radical feminists. But even moderate radical feminists fall into a subtle female chauvinism.

Anarcho-feminist Oishee Alam wrote: -

“One of the pitfalls of the mainstream “liberal” feminist movement is that it seeks to bring about equality between the sexes through the very patriarchal structures we should be opposing.”(5).

In this essay Alam is right to oppose capitalism and doesn’t advocate the mass murder of males, though she characterises those structures of capital as ‘patriarchal’. Thus as Solanas conceptualised negative aspects of societies structures as male Alam’s form of feminism still exudes a form of misandry. Third-wave feminists and masculists both view misandry and misogyny as arising out of hatred of imposed gender roles on the sexes. It has been increasingly prevalent for negative representations of males to be accepted within pop culture but highly controversial to portray women in a negative way. This development only leads to more stereotypes which are counterproductive to equality between the sexes.

Masculists and third-wave feminist have challenged radical feminists conceptions of male and female power within modern societies. Concluding traditional gender roles enforced upon the sexes hurt both male and females (‘Men don’t cry”, “frailty thy name is women”) by coercing them into position they might not have chosen for themselves. Therefore third-wave feminists and progressive masculists aim for freedom of choice for both sexes and gender egalitarianism. Gender equalitarian should advocate Queer liberation and post-colonialism. Dealing with grievances from the queer i.e. lesbians, homosexual men and other who transgress traditional sexuality (though not sexuality evolving adults/children) and third world women and men with their specific conditions. These struggles for gender equality should be taken in unity with each other breaking down barriers of divide but not difference. The struggle for gender equality taken without Anti-Capitalism would bash itself against the wall of economic oppression and its social and cultural run offs which affect everyone. .


Notes to “The post (liberal) feminist condition”.

(1)Beauvoir’s hermeneutics of Engles ‘Historical Materialism’ (G V Plekhanov’s terminology) are dubious; she seems to have over evaluated the usefulness of secondary literature. In Engles own words “According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase” Engels to J. Boloch September, 1890.

(2)Beauvoir denied having a great influence on modern feminism “The current feminist movement, which really started about five or six years ago, did not really know the book (‘the second sex’)” interviewed by John Gerassi for Society, Jan-Feb. 1976.

(3)Sigmund Freud’s theories of infantile sexuality and unconsciousness have been criticized from a number of angles. Freud is thought to have promoted a theory dealing with hysteria and unconscious repression of memories called the “'seduction theory'. Which stated that hysteria was not the consequence of the reliving of infantile desires as he latter advocated but rather result of wide spread child sexual abuse. Debate continues over wether fraud abandoned this because it was met with animosity in 19th century ‘moral’ Vienna or because the theory as presented was untenable.

(4)This term has been controversial. Some advocates of Masculism such as Warren Farrell who see it philosophically synonymous with feminism but addressing males concerns. Others such as Steven Goldberg are anti-feminist advancing the idea of "New Patriarchy".

(5)“Smash Patriarchy, Smash the State, Anarchofeminism” by Oishee Alam, Che-Lives Ezine, October 2005.

[Monty Cantsin]

no takers?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Excellent piece, it is a ***** when people don't read things because it takes time but this I recommend.

As for criticism I think as a whole it is very strong just a few points to make. The first one is a petty grammatical error I noticed.
This development only leaded to more stereotypes which are counterproductive to equality between the sexes.

I also though that perhaps at least a brief introduction, or examples of the first two waves of feminism would be useful, because to those that have not read feminism, or have preconceptions (many do) the essay could lose relevance until nearer the end.

The only other point was about the religious influence on abortion, but I am about to miss a bus and will take this up later.

Excellent work again.

[redstar2000]

I don't understand why you wrote this, Monty, or what you intended to accomplish.

I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that patriarchy contains elements that are oppressive to men. But you seem to be implying that such elements are comparable to the oppression of women.

That strikes me as bizarre.

Perhaps this is because I live in the United States, where there is a concerted attack on women's reproductive freedom by the Christian fascists. To speak of the "oppression of men" in this context is simply to make a very sick joke.

Indeed, the spectacle of men "crying" over their "oppression" at the present time is simply disgusting. It's like hearing landlords complain about "destructive tenants" or capitalists complain about "lazy workers".

At some time in the future, when patriarchy is really "on the ropes" and very close to permanent destruction, perhaps we can then consider those small features of it that are "oppressive to men".

To do so now seems to me to be, at the very least, in very poor taste.

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

[rioters bloc]

i love it when men who regard patriarchy as a non-issue then analyse the feminist movement. i love it even more when they try and subvert it entirely to make themselves look like the victims. as redstar already mentioned, i'm not denying that male oppression exists as well - but to place it on the same level as womyn's oppression is, frankly, simply offensive.



Cretin varieties of second wave feminism retain a type of quasi-phallocentricism in that it affords the notion of patriarchy to much weight, universality and neglect the women’s agency in her own creation. The privileging of males over females within societies came about largely when men started to control the higher yielding means of production during what we now term the Neolithic revolution. Women’s labour was domesticated while the male roles were more propionate. Female contributions to society were and are respected but they became less and less independent.

you say that men were privileged over womyn because they participated in labour which was deemed more important to society. i'd go one step back and say, 'who decided that the work that men did was more important?' i also find your comment that 'female contributions to society were and are respected' laughable. not meaning to be rude, but you seem to live in some kind of alternate reality.


Men have also been discriminated against by the institutions of government in the realm of family law and custody issues. Until of late in Australia after devoice the family court autonomically started with custody at 80% for the mother and 20% the ather, which is discrimination based on sex. This has recently been changed to an even footing of 50/50 custody with the family law court under pressure from male rights advocates or ‘Masculists’ (4).

50/50 shared parenting is an extremely flawed concept that has been overwhelmingly opposed by divorcing couples - 97% in fact, in a nationwide survey done by separated or divorced couples in Australia in 2004.

this kind of legislation assumes that one size will fit all, removes the discretion of the magistrate, and completely fails to take into account individual circumstances and the wishes/needs of the parents/carers and children themselves. this is a great example of how treating everyone equally does not achieve equality. i think it's quite telling that you're supporting legislation that john howard introduced to curb the 'feminisation' of young men without male role models.


In this essay Alam is right to oppose capitalism and doesn’t advocate the mass murder of males, though she characterises those structures of capital as ‘patriarchal’. Thus as Solanas conceptualised negative aspects of societies structures as male Alam’s form of feminism still exudes a form of misandry. Third-wave feminists and masculists both view misandry and misogyny as arising out of hatred of imposed gender roles on the sexes. It has been increasingly prevalent for negative representations of males to be accepted within pop culture but highly controversial to portray women in a negative way. This development only leads to more stereotypes which are counterproductive to equality between the sexes.


considering we've had numerous conversations about this and i've explained my position numerous times, including the very article you quote me on, i take offense at your accusation of misandry. you have continuously said that you don't see patriarchy as an issue in our society, both in personal correspondences and on this forum. you say the reason is because you don't see how you are complicit in it. you also fail to see domestic violence against womyn as being a major issue, saying that 'the idea that women aren't violent is a myth'. that kind of mentality fucking disgusts me. never would i say that womyn can't or aren't violent towards men, but the fact of the matter is that most violence perpetrated by womyn is against other womyn, and if you actually compared the stats on violence by men against womyn and violence by womyn against men you'd maybe have a better idea of how ridiculous your 'argument' is. instead of producing facts, you told me that you'd seen your mum hit your dad, but never the other way round.' again, you're basing your theories on your personal experiences/feelings instead of looking at it in a wide context. it doesnt even have to be all that much wider for you to see the fallacies in your theory. australia has the highest cases of domestic violence out of any westernised nation in the world, and you have the gall to tell me that domestic violence towards womyn is not really an issue 'because womyn do it too'.

even the way you spoke to me that night on msn was extrmely patronising:

* telling me that 'revolution doesnt have to be bathed in blood' when nowhere in my article or in coversation had i mentioned taking up arms.

* telling me just to 'read the second sex' when you couldn't refute my arguments [oh oishee, you're so naive and ill-educated, just read this book and you'll see the light!]

* trying to twist my words -
you: so what do you think created patriarchy?
me: one of the reasons is that men are generally physically stronger and they used violence particularly sexual violence against womyn to bend them to their will
you: oh so before you said it was society keeping womyn down, and now its mens fault??
me: you asked about the creation of patriarchy, and considering we live in a patriarchal society, i cant very well say that society caused the creation of a society, can i?
you: so now you're anti-society
me: what? no, im anti-patriarchal society.

there's a lot more i'd like to say but ill leave it for the moment. i await your response.

[Monty Cantsin]

“
i love it when men who regard patriarchy as a non-issue then analyse the feminist movement. i love it even more when they try and subvert it entirely to make themselves look like the victims. as redstar already mentioned, i'm not denying that male oppression exists as well - but to place it on the same level as womyn's oppression is, frankly, simply offensive.”

You’re missing the point I’m not saying that women are constructing a crypto-matriarchy but rather that that restrictive gender roles affect everyone and thus everyone is oppressed by them not just the ‘womyn’. So both men and women are victims, not one anymore then the other. I even consider myself a third-wave feminist.

“
you say that men were privileged over womyn because they participated in labour which was deemed more important to society. i'd go one step back and say, 'who decided that the work that men did was more important?'”

Well if you live in an economy marred by scarcity labour-power expended that produces more subsistence/things/commodities is going to be considered more valuable. When production was more labour intensive males took on that role while women become more and more domestic and dependent on male production. Post-industrial capitalism production process is more mental then manual meaning that females can more easily gain economic independence if they choose. The base of societies is the economics and the superstructure both is determined and impact upon the base. Thus I didn’t say women were less important but that males in the economic sphere of pre-affluent societies dominated because of production practices.

“'
female contributions to society were and are respected' laughable. not meaning to be rude, but you seem to live in some kind of alternate reality.”

No, do you live in an alternative reality? I mean people resect the women’s role as mother. We might even say that in the rhetoric of modern societies women are respected more, we’re thought to threat women right, to not hit women and so on. But are we told don’t him men? Isn’t the line ‘women and children first’. when they read causalities the normal process is to name causalities and then woman as if females lives are more valued then males. Language and its uses my friends are counter-stone to human societies and have power in shaping perception. You know that because you type womyn instead of women because judging yourself against men which is implied by the traditional spelling as some think which implies that men are the high-water mark the subject and you are the other.

“
50/50 shared parenting is an extremely flawed concept that has been overwhelmingly opposed by divorcing couples - 97% in fact, in a nationwide survey done by separated or divorced couples in Australia in 2004.”

I never said that 50/50 parenting should be the norm for devoiced couples. What I did say was that courts shouldn’t discriminate on the basses of sex, that someone should get a fair trail regardless of their sex.

“
this kind of legislation assumes that one size will fit all, removes the discretion of the magistrate, and completely fails to take into account individual circumstances and the wishes/needs of the parents/carers and children themselves. this is a great example of how treating everyone equally does not achieve equality. i think it's quite telling that you're supporting legislation that john howard introduced to curb the 'feminisation' of young men without male role models.”

Legislation that discriminates against a particular sex just because of their sex doesn’t account for individual circumstances. The current legislation on that particular point has changed the court practice from on based on social perceptions and expectation of the males role in society to being a case by case evaluation that starts from a point from relatively less discrimination against the father. The need for Male role models is needed as much as the need for female role models, this seems like your saying females are more important then males in rasing of children.

“
considering we've had numerous conversations about this and i've explained my position numerous times, including the very article you quote me on, i take offense at your accusation of misandry.”

I took offence to when you called me a sexist. But it’s not a vindictive slur I believe your idea that structures of capital are patriarchal and thus characteristic of males rather then humans at a certain state of development to be a form misandry. Capital doesn’t have a sex or gender I’m sorry.

“
you also fail to see domestic violence against womyn as being a major issue, saying that 'the idea that women aren't violent is a myth'. that kind of mentality fucking disgusts me. never would i say that womyn can't or aren't violent towards men, but the fact of the matter is that most violence perpetrated by womyn is against other womyn, and if you actually compared the stats on violence by men against womyn and violence by womyn against men.”

I Never said that I don’t consider violence against women by men to be a problem and an issue for society to deal with. With your statement that violence against women is used within our society to enforce patriarchy I responded by saying it’s no a one way street women can be violent too. At which point you called me a sexist f87ker and left the conversation, you never asked me if I thought domestic violence was a problem. I think it’s something that should be prosecuted regardless of which sex is abusing the other. And yes men on women domestic violence is more prevalent then women on men domestic violence. But I don’t see how domestic violence enforces patriarchy in modern societies anymore seeing it’s not an accpeted practice and considered a criminal offence.

“
australia has the highest cases of domestic violence out of any westernised nation in the world, and you have the gall to tell me that domestic violence towards womyn is not really an issue 'because womyn do it too'.”

Misrepresentation I never said that.

“
telling me that 'revolution doesnt have to be bathed in blood' when nowhere in my article or in coversation had i mentioned taking up arms.”

I never said you did say it had to be violent and bloody. You said there’s been no real change in the status of women scince the feminst movment and I said revolution doesn’t have to be bathed in blood or something of the likes.

“
telling me just to 'read the second sex' when you couldn't refute my arguments [oh oishee, you're so naive and ill-educated, just read this book and you'll see the light!]”

We were talking about theories within that book and I asked if you’re read it, least that’s the context I remember it in I don’t think we were arguing by that point.

“
you: so what do you think created patriarchy?
me: one of the reasons is that men are generally physically stronger and they used violence particularly sexual violence against womyn to bend them to their will
you: oh so before you said it was society keeping womyn down, and now its mens fault??
me: you asked about the creation of patriarchy, and considering we live in a patriarchal society, i cant very well say that society caused the creation of a society, can i?
you: so now you're anti-society
me: what? no, im anti-patriarchal society.”

I don’t remember it happing remotely like that, but can see you haven’t quoted the transcript because i was using the word women throughout not womyn. therefore you could have it quite wrong.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I don't really see how you guys got all of that out of the essay? I think that almost all the objections made were taken out of context here, although you seem to talk to the author more than me, I jsut think both attacks were based on unjustified assumptions.

I could in no way see how MC said men were just as, if not more so, discriminated against than women. It would not be incomplete to at least highlight the flip side, it is assumptions of the reader, not the author that clouded clarity.

Where the rights of men are in question is within legislation, where discrimination of women is increasingly decreased. There is still biased towards women in the role of the mother. This bias is only relevnat if the women doesn't want to be a mother, but would rather work (no longer that much of a problem), or if a father would rather be a father than work (more of a problem).

If the "dominant" ideology creating these laws is openly biased then there is objection on principle. Cultural discrimination, that within the media and beyond is part of a different issue.

EDIT: Monty Cantsin beat me to it.

[rioters bloc]

You’re missing the point I’m not saying that women are constructing a crypto-matriarchy but rather that that restrictive gender roles affect everyone and thus everyone is oppressed by them not just the ‘womyn’. So both men and women are victims, not one anymore then the other. I even consider myself a third-wave feminist.

no, i understood your point entirely. this is it right here:


So both men and women are victims, not one anymore then the other. [emphasis added]

i will continue to fight against this view that men are just as oppressed as womyn. not because i hate men or because i want to cling to this oppression because it makes me feel good, but because this is a view which is completely untrue and heightens condescending attitudes from men who should be fighting alongside us - 'oh, not those feminists again - why don't they just get over it, because we're just as oppressed as them'.


Well if you live in an economy marred by scarcity labour-power expended that produces more subsistence/things/commodities is going to be considered more valuable. When production was more labour intensive males took on that role while women become more and more domestic and dependent on male production. Post-industrial capitalism production process is more mental then manual meaning that females can more easily gain economic independence if they choose. The base of societies is the economics and the superstructure both is determined and impact upon the base. Thus I didn’t say women were less important but that males in the economic sphere of pre-affluent societies dominated because of production practices.

things like production techniques and prioritsation of techniques dont just 'come naturally' but are a product of the society they're in. and even if that were the case, despite the production process being more "mental then manual meaning that females can more easily gain economic independence if they choose", womyn are still more often than not forced to take on most of the domestic work, only now they're also able to choose to go out and work in the workplace as well - highlighting the entenched nature of patriarchy in society. because rather than sharing both the domestic and outside work which would actually be 'equal', it usually ends up being the womyn taking up both duties. so your idea that both men and womyn are equally oppressed doesn't really work there - they should be [or rather they shouldnt be oppressed at all], but in reality they aren't.


No, do you live in an alternative reality? I mean people resect the women’s role as mother. We might even say that in the rhetoric of modern societies women are respected more, we’re thought to threat women right, to not hit women and so on. But are we told don’t him men? Isn’t the line ‘women and children first’. when they read causalities the normal process is to name causalities and then woman as if females lives are more valued then males. Language and its uses my friends are counter-stone to human societies and have power in shaping perception. You know that because you type womyn instead of women because judging yourself against men which is implied by the traditional spelling as some think which implies that men are the high-water mark the subject and you are the other.

yes, some people respect womyn's role as the mother. not the womyn herself. her value is determined through what she can offer society - more bodies. and again, you're provind yourself to be completely out of touch with 'modern society' - womyn are respected more? what? you use the example of 'we're taught to treat women right, to not hit women' - i counter this with 1. and womyn are taught to not treat men right, and to hit them? and 2. it's one thing to be taught it and quite another to put that into practice, particularly when society is so saturated with sexism.


Legislation that discriminates against a particular sex just because of their sex doesn’t account for individual circumstances. The current legislation on that particular point has changed the court practice from on based on social perceptions and expectation of the males role in society to being a case by case evaluation that starts from a point from relatively less discrimination against the father. The need for Male role models is needed as much as the need for female role models, this seems like your saying females are more important then males in rasing of children.

what legislation are you talking about here? you do realise that before, family law being as fraught with tension and fragile as it is, every decision was made by a magistrate/judge and not dictated by legislation? but this 50/50 shared parenting scheme means that that discretion is removed and in every case of divorce custody has to be split equally, which most of the time impacts unfairly on both parents and children.

i'm not saying that females are more important than males in raising children. i'm saying that howard, with this legislation, and you, for supporting it, are perpetuating this concept of gender roles, despite your claims of opposing them.


I took offence to when you called me a sexist. But it’s not a vindictive slur I believe your idea that structures of capital are patriarchal and thus characteristic of males rather then humans at a certain state of development to be a form misandry. Capital doesn’t have a sex or gender I’m sorry.

capitalism as a structure doesn't, and i never said that. i have always said that the problem was hierarchies, all hierarchies, and patriarchy is one of those hierarchies. and then i said that at the top of most if not all of these hierarchies are men, and it's created a culture where what's seen as 'male' traits are valued more. i never said that 'capitalism' was patriarchal, if you could point me in the direction of a comment i made that could be viewed as such i would greatly appreciate it.


I Never said that I don’t consider violence against women by men to be a problem and an issue for society to deal with. With your statement that violence against women is used within our society to enforce patriarchy I responded by saying it’s no a one way street women can be violent too. At which point you called me a sexist f87ker and left the conversation, you never asked me if I thought domestic violence was a problem. I think it’s something that should be prosecuted regardless of which sex is abusing the other. And yes men on women domestic violence is more prevalent then women on men domestic violence. But I don’t see how domestic violence enforces patriarchy in modern societies anymore seeing it’s not an accpeted practice and considered a criminal offence.


i think that perhaps you don't understand what domestic violence actually is, and the ramifications it has. domestic violence is not just one partner slapping another in anger. it is the exercise of power over another through the use of physical violence. in that respect, women on men domestic violence doesn't even exist - it's something like 1 to 40 000 or something. you say men on women is more prevalent as though its 40/60 or something, you don't seem to realise what a far reaching issue it actually is. domestic violence does enforce patriarchy because it enforces the rule of the male party over that of the womyn, to keep her in 'her place'. and i refute your statement of 'its not accepted practice'. in australia, it's almost a given these days, and the authorities for the most part turn a blind eye to it. and because of the very nature of this patriarchal society, most womyn are too frightened and ashamed to even go to the authorities about it in the first place, just like with rape - there's a stigma attached to it, as though it's somehow 'your fault' because you're not a good enough wife or mother. funding for domestic violence from the government has been continually reduced over the years, and this means that womyn are even more isolated and have nowhere to go to seek refuge. remember when those 'be alert not alarmed' packages came out in i think 2003? the ones with the fridge magnets? guess where the $10 million needed to make them came from? that's right the domestic violence fund


“
australia has the highest cases of domestic violence out of any westernised nation in the world, and you have the gall to tell me that domestic violence towards womyn is not really an issue 'because womyn do it too'.”

Misrepresentation I never said that.

rather than actually address my comments about domestic violence being an issue, you replied with:

i removed the image because it revealed some personal stuff and i didn't know if you wanted it to be publicised [it was a screenshot of our msn chat log which has some stuff written on it]

so instead of saying that yes, domestic violence is a problem, you belittled it by saying 'well womyn do it too and so based on only my personal experience, domestic violence is over-emphasised.'


“
telling me that 'revolution doesnt have to be bathed in blood' when nowhere in my article or in coversation had i mentioned taking up arms.”

I never said you did say it had to be violent and bloody. You said there’s been no real change in the status of women scince the feminst movment and I said revolution doesn’t have to be bathed in blood or something of the likes.

exactly. i didn't say anything involving blood. you seem to think i'm a fool, and that i the reason i dont believe any real change has been made is because there hasnt been a bloody revolution. you immediately jumped to correcting me, when there was no reason to think i was mistaken - in my article, i clearly explain why i think no real progress has been made and i never ever mentioned violence. i'm not saying you treat me like that because i'm a womyn, maybe you just treat everyone as though theyre idiots.


We were talking about theories within that book and I asked if you’re read it, least that’s the context I remember it in I don’t think we were arguing by that point.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4218/matt8sn.jpg

you didn't ask if id read it. you assumed i hadn't since otherwise i wouldnt be arguing with you, right? since simone de beauvoir is the be all and end all of feminist theory?


“
you: so what do you think created patriarchy?
me: one of the reasons is that men are generally physically stronger and they used violence particularly sexual violence against womyn to bend them to their will
you: oh so before you said it was society keeping womyn down, and now its mens fault??
me: you asked about the creation of patriarchy, and considering we live in a patriarchal society, i cant very well say that society caused the creation of a society, can i?
you: so now you're anti-society
me: what? no, im anti-patriarchal society.”

I don’t remember it happing remotely like that, but can see you haven’t quoted the transcript because i was using the word women throughout not womyn. therefore you could have it quite wrong.

sorry - i paraphrased. here's the exact transcript, i had to split it into 2 screen shots.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7050/matt10kl.jpg
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3690/matt20di.jpg

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by The Post (Liberal) Feminist Condition+--> (The Post (Liberal) Feminist Condition)Pornography is also debated within the feminist movement and of course there are the sex-negativities and sex-positives feminists. The interesting aspect of this sub-issue is the phenomena of ‘porn for the masses by the masses’ swapped over the internet subverting commodity cultures exploitation of human sexuality.[/b]

I find this part quite lacking, as P2P (peer to peer) porn can be just as degrading as any produced in mainstream industry, or worse. What this fails to address is the very predatory nature held by those supporting reactionary culture.


If opinions between the couples differ on a course of action then the women rightly has the choice over her own body. But the male should not be held to pay for her decision of having a baby when he would have chosen an abortion. Thus if a women is given the right to choose so should the male. But as it stands now males have to pay child endowment even if the choice of having a baby was not theirs, therefore their lives are coerced because of inequities in the law and the choice of another. The details of this arrangement seem problematic but it is an arrangement fundamental to the rights of both sexes and gender egalitarianism.

This is a great point and really comes back to the issue of economic exploitation/inequality within the capitalist system. So long as relationships are defined by monetary exchange (including abstract value); such conflicts are practically unavoidable.


6th paragraph
Because of the inequities in the law women initiate the majority of divorcees under the belief that they will retain full custody, many Masculists have argued that men are keep in unhappy marriages because they fear losing contact with their children.

More grammar commentary: “keep” should be kept.


“Radical feminist such as Valerie Solanas did not classify society as a matriarchy (a society that preferences females over males which is still a hierarchy) because she viewed negative aspects of society including the capitalist commodity system as characteristics of the male sex.”

This is simply a disgusting problem. Like "reverse racism," this is another emulation of the oppressors ideology, simply inverted. This sort of black and white worldview is the very conduct the ruling class needs to use reactionary ideologies in inciting violence against valid (humanitarian) movements.


“It has been increasingly prevalent for negative representations of males to be accepted within pop culture but highly controversial to portray women in a negative way. This development only leads to more stereotypes which are counterproductive to equality between the sexes.”

Indeed; we can gauge the progress of gender equality on even the most superficial characteristics. Once it was taboo for women to wear pants and now that is generally a non-issue (in the US at least) but the male role is still generally unquestioned; a man in a skirt goes up against great social stigmas.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:50 AM
I don't understand why you wrote this, Monty, or what you intended to accomplish.
What is to not understand? Gender roles are oppressive to both men and women. When people understand the parallels, they will be willing to stand up against the oppressive social standards and this will go a long way to alleviate the alienation of the "battle of the sexes" culture.


I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that patriarchy contains elements that are oppressive to men. But you seem to be implying that such elements are comparable to the oppression of women.

They are indeed comparable, as is anything of a similar nature. This does not mean they are equatable, only comparable.


Perhaps this is because I live in the United States, where there is a concerted attack on women's reproductive freedom by the Christian fascists. To speak of the "oppression of men" in this context is simply to make a very sick joke.

I don't understand your point. The text addressed liability for other's decisions and obviously the monetary stipulations are arbitrary in the capitalist system.


Indeed, the spectacle of men "crying" over their "oppression" at the present time is simply disgusting. It's like hearing landlords complain about "destructive tenants" or capitalists complain about "lazy workers".

Your statement is callous and absurd. Men are not the oppressors; just because a system is set up by a group of men, does not make all men oppressors or complicit in activities they had no hand in. This is pure bigotry!
Empowering disenfranchised males is very important. It seems people are confused as to the meaning of patriarchic society; as this doesn’t mean all males somehow hold the power of social standards but as always, this is only under the determination of the elite.


At some time in the future, when patriarchy is really "on the ropes" and very close to permanent destruction, perhaps we can then consider those small features of it that are "oppressive to men".

So you are saying we should not fully understand the implication of gender roles and ignore the implications on those less oppressed?
Perhaps since anti-Semitism is less prevalent then racism, we should ignore anti-Semitism?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
So you are saying we should not fully understand the implication of gender roles and ignore the implications on those less oppressed? Perhaps since anti-Semitism is less prevalent than racism, we should ignore anti-Semitism?

Perhaps you'll someday grasp the futility of putting your own dubious words into my mouth.

But I ain't holding my breath.

Meanwhile, if you wish to join the whimpering circles of "oppressed men", just send me your Tough Shit card and I'll be glad to punch it for you.

I think of you guys trying to raise a kid or two while holding down some crappy service job or drawing temporary welfare. Your howls would crack the ceilings!

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

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 2 2005, 08:23 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 2 2005, 08:23 PM)
313C7 iVi4RX
So you are saying we should not fully understand the implication of gender roles and ignore the implications on those less oppressed? Perhaps since anti-Semitism is less prevalent than racism, we should ignore anti-Semitism?

Perhaps you'll someday grasp the futility of putting your own dubious words into my mouth. [/b]
You made the point that we should consider the oppression of men later.
While women generally have more problems and ones that eminently need attention; this in no way justifies ignorance of gender role oppression in general. We either stand up for everyone and handle this social injustice entirely or we risk the problems we are nor considering, growing.


But I ain't holding my breath.

Likewise, I am not holding my breath for a logical reply from you on my criticism.


Meanwhile, if you wish to join the whimpering circles of "oppressed men", just send me your Tough Shit card and I'll be glad to punch it for you.

Exactly my point; you are a bigot. Men cannot have problems with the social order if women are more oppressed... just like you shouldn't complain about being mugged, because others have it worse.


I think of you guys trying to raise a kid or two while holding down some crappy service job or drawing temporary welfare. Your howls would crack the ceilings!

What the fuck are you trying to say? Perhaps you need to elaborate on you prejudicial non-sense.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 2 2005, 09:47 AM
i love it when men who regard patriarchy as a non-issue then analyse the feminist movement. i love it even more when they try and subvert it entirely to make themselves look like the victims. as redstar already mentioned, i'm not denying that male oppression exists as well - but to place it on the same level as womyn's oppression is, frankly, simply offensive.
Come on RB; where did he say any of that? Gender equality is an all or nothing issue. To say "women only" is simple bigotry.


i also find your comment that 'female contributions to society were and are respected' laughable. not meaning to be rude, but you seem to live in some kind of alternate reality.

I disagree; even women in Nazi Germany were more respected if they could maintain themselves as reliable baby-factories. I don't think anyone is saying women aren't generally second-class citizens in reactionary society but their exploitation is certainly "respected," as it were.

[Monty Cantsin]

“
i will continue to fight against this view that men are just as oppressed as womyn. not because i hate men or because i want to cling to this oppression because it makes me feel good, but because this is a view which is completely untrue and heightens condescending attitudes from men who should be fighting alongside us - 'oh, not those feminists again - why don't they just get over it, because we're just as oppressed as them'.”

The restriction both men and women face because of gender discrimination are comparable. I’d say men are hampered by traditional gender roles almost or just as much as females but if you wanted to get to the bottom of that you could tally concerns of the two sexes and see numerically whose got more issues. But you are making a value judgement - are you trying to tell me that my issues of male discrimination are less important.


“things like production techniques and prioritsation of techniques dont just 'come naturally' but are a product of the society they're in.”

They are product of society at any historical point trying to get the highest productivity possible. They come from the necessity of humans needing to over come scarcity.

“
womyn are still more often than not forced to take on most of the domestic work, only now they're also able to choose to go out and work in the workplace as well - highlighting the entenched nature of patriarchy in society. “

You seem to have a problem that participation rates within the work place are unequal between the sexes. If a women wants to be the mother that’s her choice the simple fact that she chooses domestic work over outside work shouldn’t be held against her. If she annoyed because she works more within the house then her husband she should take it up with him. it’s not enforced in legalisation. anyway you make it sound like it’s a huge dichotomy. According to “United Nations Human Development Report 2004: Section 28, Gender, Work Burden, and Time Allocation “ women in the OECD countries surveyed, on average women performed 5% more work than men, or 18 minutes per day.

“
yes, some people respect womyn's role as the mother. not the womyn herself. her value is determined through what she can offer society - more bodies. and again, you're provind yourself to be completely out of touch with 'modern society'”

Men are also valued by how much they can provide society with.

“
i counter this with 1. and womyn are taught to not treat men right, and to hit them?”

I never said that, the line is not ‘don’t hit people’ it’s ‘don’t hit women’.

“.
it's one thing to be taught it and quite another to put that into practice, particularly when society is so saturated with sexism.”

I agree with you here. As they say ‘there’s no such thing as love only Profs of love’. Respect has subjective and objective manifestations. But I sill thing women are respected in the subjective sphere more. The question of who’s more respected objectively, I don’t know that’s a tough question.

“
every decision was made by a magistrate/judge and not dictated by legislation?”

Yes but legislation gives the guidelines and magistrates/judges interpret from that base-legislation is not irrelevant.

“
but this 50/50 shared parenting scheme means that that discretion is removed and in every case of divorce custody has to be split equally, which most of the time impacts unfairly on both parents and children.”

Does that legislation even exist according my information it doesn’t? I’m not saying it should be 50/50 custody and most couple work out an arrangement that suits them but 50/50 is not unworkable.

“i
'm saying that howard, with this legislation, and you, for supporting it, are perpetuating this concept of gender roles, despite your claims of opposing them.”

Howard might well be pushing the idea of traditional gender roles but the fact remains that his legalisation has removed some of the bigotry out of the family law system.

“
capitalism as a structure doesn't, and i never said that. i have always said that the problem was hierarchies, all hierarchies, and patriarchy is one of those hierarchies. and then i said that at the top of most if not all of these hierarchies are men, and it's created a culture where what's seen as 'male' traits are valued more. i never said that 'capitalism' was patriarchal, if you could point me in the direction of a comment i made that could be viewed as such i would greatly appreciate it.”

Maybe you don’t believe it in which case you should revise your essay. Because you talked about female oppression being ingrained in patriarchal societies and participation in those structures is wrong because they fundamentally oppress women and structures of capital was one of the structures you named.

“
in that respect, women on men domestic violence doesn't even exist - it's something like 1 to 40 000 or something. you say men on women is more prevalent as though its 40/60 or something, you don't seem to realise what a far reaching issue it actually is. domestic violence does enforce patriarchy because it enforces the rule of the male party over that of the womyn, to keep her in 'her place'.”

Even if it’s 1 in 40,000 it still exists. I don’t know the Australian statistics but in the UK The British Crime Survey for the year 2001-2 reported, "There were an estimated 12.9 million incidents of domestic violence acts (nonsexual threats or force) against women [84%] and 2.5 million against men [16%] in England and Wales in the year prior to interview." The same report states, "Four per cent of women and two per cent of men were subject to domestic violence (non-sexual domestic threats or force) during the last year." This can be fond on Wikipedia. I’m not arguing that physically dominating someone isn’t enforcing your will I’m arguing that domestic violence against women doesn’t make society a hegemonic patriarchy it just give it elements of patriarchy. Just as women dominating men while a lot not as widespread enforces their will over him.

“
funding for domestic violence from the government has been continually reduced over the years, and this means that womyn are even more isolated and have nowhere to go to seek refuge. remember when those 'be alert not alarmed' packages came out in i think 2003? the ones with the fridge magnets? guess where the $10 million needed to make them came from? that's right the domestic violence fund”

Public funding has been reduced across the board by Howard not just women’s services. Their’s another problem though, there’s no support services for male victims of domestic violence and no complains saying ‘to violence against men Australia says no’.

“
i removed the image because it revealed some personal stuff and i didn't know if you wanted it to be publicised [it was a screenshot of our msn chat log which has some stuff written on it]”

Thank you for being considerate.

“
exactly. i didn't say anything involving blood. you seem to think i'm a fool, and that i the reason i dont believe any real change has been made is because there hasnt been a bloody revolution. you immediately jumped to correcting me, when there was no reason to think i was mistaken - in my article, i clearly explain why i think no real progress has been made and i never ever mentioned violence. i'm not saying you treat me like that because i'm a womyn, maybe you just treat everyone as though theyre idiots.”

When I made that comment I wasn’t intentionally trying to belittle you and if you feel wronged I apologies.

“
you didn't ask if id read it. you assumed i hadn't since otherwise i wouldnt be arguing with you, right? since simone de beauvoir is the be all and end all of feminist theory?”

I just consider that book pretty good and I pretty sure we were arguing about a thesis contained within it. I though we were having a break down in communication so I was saying go to the source.

If theirs something I haven’t talked about thoroughly enough for yo or passed over it tell me Oishee.
--------------
“
This is a great point and really comes back to the issue of economic exploitation/inequality within the capitalist system. So long as relationships are defined by monetary exchange (including abstract value); such conflicts are practically unavoidable.”

I totally agree with you it’s problematic because the economic system forces us into roles, Though a highly social democratic system could over come it.
“

I find this part quite lacking, as P2P (peer to peer) porn can be just as degrading as any produced in mainstream industry, or worse. What this fails to address is the very predatory nature held by those supporting reactionary culture.”

i can see your point some S&M would be what I’d think about in that context but then if it’s consenting I don’t see a problem. On personal experience i know women who really like the stuff

yer 313C7 iVi4RX I’ll stop going through your sections it would just be an affirmation of what you’ve said.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are people seriously arguing that men are oppressed? What the fuck? Maybe you can explain in less than a paragraph, because a long-winded essay really doesn't put it across.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Nov 3 2005, 05:17 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Nov 3 2005, 05:17 PM)
rioters [email protected] 2 2005, 09:47 AM
i love it when men who regard patriarchy as a non-issue then analyse the feminist movement. i love it even more when they try and subvert it entirely to make themselves look like the victims. as redstar already mentioned, i'm not denying that male oppression exists as well - but to place it on the same level as womyn's oppression is, frankly, simply offensive.
Come on RB; where did he say any of that? Gender equality is an all or nothing issue. To say "women only" is simple bigotry.
[/b]
his entire article reeked of it, and i thought i'd explained myself well enough.. i first suspected him of it here though

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/8846/matt39yd.jpg

and in several conversations ive had with him about the issue he's only kept reaffirming his deluded belief.



I disagree; even women in Nazi Germany were more respected if they could maintain themselves as reliable baby-factories. I don't think anyone is saying women aren't generally second-class citizens in reactionary society but their exploitation is certainly "respected," as it were.

well actually, that's exactly what Monty is saying, that they aren't second-class citizen because their oppression is equal to that of men.

and what exactly did you disagree with? i said pretty much exactly what you just said in my post:



yes, some people respect womyn's role as the mother. not the womyn herself. her value is determined through what she can offer society - more bodies.

[rioters bloc]

The restriction both men and women face because of gender discrimination are comparable. I’d say men are hampered by traditional gender roles almost or just as much as females but if you wanted to get to the bottom of that you could tally concerns of the two sexes and see numerically whose got more issues. But you are making a value judgement - are you trying to tell me that my issues of male discrimination are less important.

traditional gender roles is simply one aspect of patriarchy, and while it's a large and very legitimate aspect indeed, it seems to be the only thing which you're basing your agument of 'men are just as oppressed as womyn' on.


You seem to have a problem that participation rates within the work place are unequal between the sexes. If a women wants to be the mother that’s her choice the simple fact that she chooses domestic work over outside work shouldn’t be held against her. If she annoyed because she works more within the house then her husband she should take it up with him. it’s not enforced in legalisation.

i never said that she shouldn't be able to choose domestic work over outside work, i'm saying that both men and womyn should participate in both areas of labour. you keep acting as though i'm trying to restrict womyn from having children or staying at home, with no basis at all for that assumption. also, why should it be something which the woman takes up with her partner if 'she's annoyed'? why should the burden fall on her? because the very nature of patriarchy forces her into that 'private sphere'. you act as though it's womyn's fault that theyre usually forced into domestic labour. you always seem to fall back on 'legislation promotes equality, and therefore there's no patriarchy.' patriarchy is entrenched in society, it's not something which can just be fixed by reforms in legislation [and whether or not this legislation even promotes equality is highly debatable'.


“
i counter this with 1. and womyn are taught to not treat men right, and to hit them?”

I never said that, the line is not ‘don’t hit people’ it’s ‘don’t hit women’.

of course, because womyn are seen as frail and weak, right?


Does that legislation even exist according my information it doesn’t? I’m not saying it should be 50/50 custody and most couple work out an arrangement that suits them but 50/50 is not unworkable.

no, it doesn't exist, it's still undergoing review. but you brought it up in the first place as a 'workable solution' when it's clearly not.


Howard might well be pushing the idea of traditional gender roles but the fact remains that his legalisation has removed some of the bigotry out of the family law system.

yes, and his union legislation has removed some of the bigotry against big business. and his terror-law legislation has removed some of the bigotry against ASIO forces who wanna do some serious muslim-bashing.

firstly you try and justify your reformist views, and now you're defending howard's reactionary, fundamental, 'family first-esque' values?


Maybe you don’t believe it in which case you should revise your essay. Because you talked about female oppression being ingrained in patriarchal societies and participation in those structures is wrong because they fundamentally oppress women and structures of capital was one of the structures you named.

because of the people controlling capital. not capital itself.



Even if it’s 1 in 40,000 it still exists. I don’t know the Australian statistics but in the UK The British Crime Survey for the year 2001-2 reported, "There were an estimated 12.9 million incidents of domestic violence acts (nonsexual threats or force) against women [84%] and 2.5 million against men [16%] in England and Wales in the year prior to interview." The same report states, "Four per cent of women and two per cent of men were subject to domestic violence (non-sexual domestic threats or force) during the last year.

i've never denied that it doesn't exist. i'm sure you'll be interested to know that 99/100 violent acts against males are actually committed by males themselves, particularly when it comes to sexual violence and domestic violence. because, you know, homosexual relationships and homophobia does exist. :rolleyes:



Public funding has been reduced across the board by Howard not just women’s services. Their’s another problem though, there’s no support services for male victims of domestic violence and no complains saying ‘to violence against men Australia says no’.

have you looked? because i know that one of my queer male friends has attended a service for that exact reason before.

[Monty Cantsin]

Yes I don’t see how our society is a patriarchy in a hegemonic scene, i.e. our society doesn’t preference men over women in any universal sense rather it’s an equality of inequality.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 3 2005, 06:23 AM
Yes I don’t see how our society is a patriarchy in a hegemonic scene, i.e. our society doesn’t preference men over women in any universal sense rather it’s an equality of inequality.
With all due respect, I think that is a false statement...that is, an inaccurate and erroneous depiction of present social reality.

The evidence for the oppression of women as a gender is simply overwhelming...and I cannot see how that can be overlooked by elevating a small number of minor disadvantages of "manhood" to an analytic "equality".

It's like saying that "racism oppresses white people too" or "sometimes Jews really do exploit Gentiles" or...

THERE'S NO COMPARISON!

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

[Mujer Libre]

Also, nobody is saying that all men oppress all women equally. Of course the usual suspects; race, class, religion and sexuality play into it too.

However if you take a man and a women who are identical in all those respects, you will most likely find that the man has more power.

Also, there is the masculine normativity of society, much like heteronormativity or white privilege. I don't have all night (have an essay to do) but patriarchy is built into the fabric of society, in what we see as positive or negative, in what it takes to be "successful" (and how we define success in the first place) and in how we relate to one another.

Yes, gender roles do restrict men, but as Redstar said, there's no comparison. What disturbs me is that the way you (MC) put things is reminiscent of the "backlash" against feminism. Not something I'd expect to read on a leftist forum. :(

[Hegemonicretribution]

As far as I understand oppression takes many forms: class, sex, religious practice, looks...so many forms. Who is more oppressed a white, wealthy lady or a black, blue collar worker? Depends on the circumstances right?

Generalising about the discrimination in the way that people are trying here is discrimination itself. If you claim that I as a male cannot be as oppressed as a female, then you have missed the point.

The article seemed to be largely a reflection on the various aspects of a movement, which I have no problems with.

Any negative discrimination felt by one group, will be to so extent felt as positive discrimination by another. In this way you could argue that discrimination at least is fairly equal. Oppression however depends on individual cases, and again, to attribute it to one aspect of which a person can be discriminated against is discriminatery in itself and unegalitarian.

[rioters bloc]

As far as I understand oppression takes many forms: class, sex, religious practice, looks...so many forms. Who is more oppressed a white, wealthy lady or a black, blue collar worker? Depends on the circumstances right?

Generalising about the discrimination in the way that people are trying here is discrimination itself. If you claim that I as a male cannot be as oppressed as a female, then you have missed the point.


i completely agree. in the article he quoted me on, that's pretty much exactly what i said - you can't get rid of just one form of oppression, they all have to be eradicated in order to achieve equality. but since MC's article didn't address those other issues of class, race, sexuality, etc. [i'm not saying that he should have, because its a pretty full on issue as it is and that wasn't the aspect he was looking at it from] but we are discussing his article, which is specifically about the oppression of womyn and men, and in a way that suggested i suppose that we would be comparing two people from the same society/class/of the same race/heterosexual.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 3 2005, 09:21 PM
and in a way that suggested i suppose that we would be comparing two people from the same society/class/of the same race/heterosexual.
I didn't get that^ at all. MC never said anything wrong and, if anything was wrong, it was the words put into his mouth. I don't know about messenger chats or anything, but from the article you would have to look at it in a certain way, and make a few assumptions to get anthing sexist at all from it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by NoXion+Nov 3 2005, 05:11 AM--> (NoXion @ Nov 3 2005, 05:11 AM)Are people seriously arguing that men are oppressed? What the fuck? Maybe you can explain in less than a paragraph, because a long-winded essay really doesn't put it across.[/b]
Can you deny it? Men are obviously oppressed by gender roles. You cannot equate it to women that simply have it much worse but men are socially restricted in some comparable ways.


Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 3 2005, 05:44 AM
his entire article reeked of it, and i thought i'd explained myself well enough.. i first suspected him of it here though
Alright; I simply think you are attributing too much to the initial essay, as I didn't see that in there. If you could point out where you saw those sentiments, it might help.



I disagree; even women in Nazi Germany were more respected if they could maintain themselves as reliable baby-factories. I don't think anyone is saying women aren't generally second-class citizens in reactionary society but their exploitation is certainly "respected," as it were.

well actually, that's exactly what Monty is saying, that they aren't second-class citizen because their oppression is equal to that of men.

Where did he say that though? I am having trouble following you because you don't directly reference statements.


and what exactly did you disagree with? i said pretty much exactly what you just said in my post:


yes, some people respect womyn's role as the mother. not the womyn herself. her value is determined through what she can offer society - more bodies.

You're right; that is quite similar. I simply didn't read carefully through your entire post because I wanted some clarification from the beginning.


Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:06 AM

Monty [email protected] 3 2005, 06:23 AM
Yes I don’t see how our society is a patriarchy in a hegemonic scene, i.e. our society doesn’t preference men over women in any universal sense rather it’s an equality of inequality.
With all due respect, I think that is a false statement...that is, an inaccurate and erroneous depiction of present social reality.

I agree; I wouldn't even know where to start. Obviously women are less prevalent in traditionally "valued" social positions due to patriarchy as much as the cultural implications.


The evidence for the oppression of women as a gender is simply overwhelming...and I cannot see how that can be overlooked by elevating a small number of minor disadvantages of "manhood" to an analytic "equality".

It's like saying that "racism oppresses white people too" or "sometimes Jews really do exploit Gentiles" or...

THERE'S NO COMPARISON!

I agreed until your closing: There is a comparison; like I said, you cannot equate the two (the comparison of magnitude) but you can compare them. A man rejecting a position of privilege or a dominant social role, experiences comparable social discrimination. That is simply one example. You are making this issue too black and white RS.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 5 2005, 06:53 AM
I disagree; even women in Nazi Germany were more respected if they could maintain themselves as reliable baby-factories. I don't think anyone is saying women aren't generally second-class citizens in reactionary society but their exploitation is certainly "respected," as it were.

well actually, that's exactly what Monty is saying, that they aren't second-class citizen because their oppression is equal to that of men.

Where did he say that though? I am having trouble following you because you don't directly reference statements.

Monty Catsin
restrictive gender roles affect everyone and thus everyone is oppressed by them not just the ‘womyn’. So both men and women are victims, not one anymore then the other

[emphasis added]

i agree with the first part of that last line, but not the part i bolded.



(rioters bloc @ Nov 3 2005, 09:21 PM)
and in a way that suggested i suppose that we would be comparing two people from the same society/class/of the same race/heterosexual.

I didn't get that^ at all.

basically, i meant that his article seemed to be comparing a man and a womyn from the same class, country, age group, sexuality, etc. which is fine for the purposes of that article. the comment wasn't really meant to be 'gotten', it was just in reply to your: "As far as I understand oppression takes many forms: class, sex, religious practice, looks...so many forms. Who is more oppressed a white, wealthy lady or a black, blue collar worker? Depends on the circumstances right?"

oh, and i was just wondering, when you said black blue collar worker did you mean male worker? because womyn can be workers too, you know :rolleyes:

313C7 iVi4RX


Alright; I simply think you are attributing too much to the initial essay, as I didn't see that in there. If you could point out where you saw those sentiments, it might help.

Hegemonicretribution


MC never said anything wrong and, if anything was wrong, it was the words put into his mouth. I don't know about messenger chats or anything, but from the article you would have to look at it in a certain way, and make a few assumptions to get anthing sexist at all from it.

it seems as though my partial breakdown of his article wasn't enough to explain why i thought it was sexist. when i get home from work i'll try and breakdown the entire article.

[Monty Cantsin]

“
it seems as though my partial breakdown of his article wasn't enough to explain why i thought it was sexist. when i get home from work i'll try and breakdown the entire article.”

The only time you said I was sexist was when you put words in my mouth and criticized them. You might disagree with him on how I conceptualise gender roles but you can’t go as far to call me a sexist.

“
I agree; I wouldn't even know where to start. Obviously women are less prevalent in traditionally "valued" social positions due to patriarchy as much as the cultural implications.”

The idea that women are more oppressed is based on the idea that the roles enforced on men are ‘better’, I don’t think they are.


“It's like saying that "racism oppresses white people too" or "sometimes Jews really do exploit Gentiles" or...”

That’s every Eurocentric of course whites can be victims of racism, the Japanese consider themselves racially superior to whites. Or at least thy used to thing so I don’t know about now.

If a Jew is a capitalist with gentile proletarians working underneath him or her how is it not exploiting them? Just because someone oppressed in one situation doesn’t mean that can’t oppress another in a different situations. And anyways I never said it was ‘women’ who oppress men just socially conservative views of gender roles.

“
Generalising about the discrimination in the way that people are trying here is discrimination itself. If you claim that I as a male cannot be as oppressed as a female, then you have missed the point.
….
Any negative discrimination felt by one group, will be to so extent felt as positive discrimination by another. In this way you could argue that discrimination at least is fairly equal. Oppression however depends on individual cases, and again, to attribute it to one aspect of which a person can be discriminated against is discriminatery in itself and unegalitarian.”

Exactly, the reason why I started off with the description of the novel is because the illusion of Herzog’s power actually hampered him. Just as the idea that males have more valued and better roles in societies added to their discrimination, ‘why are you winging you run the show’!... "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living...." Karl Marx

“
What disturbs me is that the way you (MC) put things is reminiscent of the "backlash" against feminism. Not something I'd expect to read on a leftist forum. ”

How is my essay reminiscent of a backlash against feminism? I’m not saying that patriarchy is good and desirable am I? I thought I was advocating gender equalitarianism.


“
because of the people controlling capital. not capital itself.”

Capital imposes its own logic on people, not people upon capital from time to time we try and constrain it but without destroying capitals logic which values only its value becomes more and more tyrannical. Besides like I said before just because a woman takes a leadership role within society or is a capitalist doesn’t mean she’s becoming a patriarch.

Anyways I know that was muddled by I’m tried and going to bed now.