Disappointment - Realizing how much anti-feminist sentiment

[Soul Rebel]

Ok- before i begin i want to tell you all how much i love this site. For a while i had been coming on here as a guest and then i finally decided to just become a member. I did this because i felt as though i had finally found a site that appreciates great leftist thinking and living. As a result i have been able to meet some awesome people who feel the way i do.

However, lately i have been getting a bit fed up with the anti-feminist comments, beliefs, and sentiments. I, as a radical commi feminist, find this very disappointing.
I don't understand how, as leftists, could some of you be anti-feminist. Anti-feminism is very much a capitalist tool. As leftists you should very much embrace feminism and what it has done for everyone. I have found the opposite however. I have noticed that many people are constantly repeating the stereotypes that have been fed to them by a society that is trying to keep a gender hierarchy.

I don't expect everyone to agree on feminism, however, i feel that if you are to put it down then please come up with some rational, educated critiques. Not just, "they are man hating," when that is not the truth. This obviously displays a lack of knowledge about feminism and feminist thought.

As leftist, you should be against all oppression, not just certain kinds. If a change is to be brought about you must fight all kinds of oppression. Racism, sexism, classism, agism, homophobia, etc. are all interlocking systems of oppression. This means that they work off each other and need each other to continue. This also means that to abolish one you have to abolish all. You cannot, for example, fight or abolish racism without fighting or abolishing classism. These -isms also interlock to form a unique experience for each individual. Here the concept of "double and triple jeopardy" come into play. While some people may only suffer from classism, others suffer from racism, classism, and sexism (this is the experience of black womyn for example.) You cannot concentrate on just one form of oppression because nothing will change- you need to concentrate on all of them, which the feminist movement has been trying to do.

I just hope you all understand what i am trying to say here. I am not insulting or putting you down, i am just explaining what i have seen. I hope that most of you will see my message and take it into consideration.

If any of you would like to learn more about feminism, the types of feminist, and feminist thought I would be more than happy to recommend some literature or even "tutor" you about it. I just want to you to understand what its really about and realize that feminism is very much needed.

Thanks.

[canikickit]

The only anti-feminist person I saw was Schumi, and he, quite frankly, seems like a bit of an idiot.

There is quite a bit of sexism, and patriarchal "values" prevalent on this site. I don't particularily find it distressing though, I didn't (or don't) expect any different, that's the reality of the world we live in. I'm nopt saying we shouldn't try and make it better, or give up hope, I'm just not shocked.

I hope you weren't offended by anything I said in that thread, I was just pointing out that at times, women get pushed above men, in the fight for equality. Which is just as bad.

I also want to add, that I think spelling woman with a "y" is silly.

As is calling actresses, "actors". What next, women to be called "mister"? If you're going to change the word for a female actor, you might as well call women men.

(Edited by canikickit at 12:53 am on May 13, 2003)

[synthesis]

I tend to be in the same camp as canikickit. I have vocally denounced sexism and/or anti-feminism several times on this forum, but if someone tries to get me to spell woman with a 'y', I'm going to laugh my ass off at them.

[Soul Rebel]

Yeah i know what you are saying about schumi.

I am not shocked either, I know it is the world we live in but at the same time i expected more from leftist. If we want to change things we cannot just cope with it, know what i mean?

I was not offended about what you said in other threads :)

As for my spelling of womyn- i obviously do it for political reasons and i myself dont find it to be silly. I am not a separatist- believing that womyn should be a separate society, that is not why i spell it that way. I do it to build an identification for womyn (or women as you spell it). Often womyn's history and prescense is ignored and this is just my way of reclaiming it. I mean why do you think there are seperate history classes for men and womyn, as well as for whites and blacks. It may seem like an unusual tactic, but i actually know of a bunch of people who actually do it.

As for calling actresses "actors"- that is not the choice of the actresses. Most females want to be identified as a woman in a profession. The word actor is a general word that is used to identify both males and females. Actresses dont ask to be called actors in order to be treated equally- it just doesnt make sense. So i think that argument is a little off track- no offense :)

[abstractmentality]

im not sure who schumi is, so i wont write on that.

but what i did want to write, or quote, is something about the spelling of womyn. this is from the booklet out of D'Angelo's cd Voodoo:
"Damn, is there any way to speak of that which is feminine without having masculinity right in the middle of it? Female. Woman. Unless, of course, these words came first and we later derived male and man from them. Somehow, i doubt that."

i would say that this is very telling, to say the least, and that the spelling of womyn with a "y" should be taken seriously.

[Soul Rebel]

thank you abstractmentality- that phrase couldnt better explain how i feel about my spelling of womyn. :)

[RedCeltic]

SenioraChe: I agree with your first post completely. I’m someone who is perhaps as much of a feminist as a male could be, and I agree with a lot of the feminist cause. Here in Albany, one of the most active groups that helped protest against the war in Iraq was a feminist group. Also, I’m fairly active in the local green party that has quite a number of feminists in it.

I do not know of the post you are referring to which is anti-feminist, if I saw it I would surely have countered it.

I do have to say however, that I, and actually all the feminists I have met and talked to, take objection to changing the word women to some made up nonsense word. Women should be proud of who they are, and the history of the struggles they have gone through as WOMEN. Changing the name of your gender does nothing for the feminist movement and only makes it hard to take you seriously.

Besides, as I was just telling someone, I see the word “woman” as being man + womb, meaning that by the simple nature of the word, a woman is everything a man is, and more! :)

[Zombie]

Hmmm, are my sex wars threads targeted in some way here?
I was thinking of posting the episodes 2 and 3 posters in the future, but if it bothers a lot of you, then i will refrain from doing so. It was just a joke anyway.

.A.

[kylie]

i dont support feminism. not due to thinking that there should not be equality, but because i feel like other single-issue ideologies, it misses the point.
feminists believe that the main benifactor of the current situation is men in general, and oppose the view that its the ruling class who gain the most and should be targetted.
most radical-feminists and liberal-feminists are for capitalism, and so i would certainly be opposed to them. and even marxist-feminists still feel that just socialist revolution will not be enough, and that a female specific action would need to accompany it. whereas really it is possible to deal with it without this emphasis, all competent leftist organisations have addressed the issue of sexism, as well as some of the less competent ones. by having a particular focus on gender, it also reduces the attention to the many other types of exploitation and problems that a revolution would inherit.

[革命者]

Quote: from canikickit on 1:47 am on May 13, 2003
The only anti-feminist person I saw was Schumi, and he, quite frankly, seems like a bit of an idiot.
shumi... yeah.. well, what can i say....?? ... ..he's dutch!



isn't he?

[canikickit]

So i think that argument is a little off track- no offense

What argument?
Things aren't as you describe with regard to that matter, I've seen female actors saying they want to be called actors, so as not to deferentiate or some such crap.

I think the fact that "man" is in "woman" and "male" is in "female" beng is pure nonsense.

It is interesting, I suppose because I do do similar things, such as not referring to the US as "America" anymore.
I don't know.


feminists believe that the main benifactor of the current situation is men in general, and oppose the view that its the ruling class who gain the most and should be targetted.

Well, I think that's nonsense also. We have to fight every fight, otherwise we'll end up with a situation where there is no "ruling class", but women are still discriminated against.

Different people have different priorities. You can't expect all women to forget about the fact that they're paid less then men.

Of course the ideal situation would be if all women were conscious to the same extent that our good friend Senora Che is, but shit, the ideal situation would be if I was president of the US aswell.

identification for womyn (or women as you spell it).

Yeah, thanks for the clarification, I was getting confused. :wink:

[Dhul Fiqar]

There have been several major split between feminism and socialism, but they always seem to end up as bedfellows again (no pun intended). I think some of the fundamental arguments of feminism seriously contradict socialism, most importantly in it's focus on gender rather than class, as was already mentioned.

There are some schools of feminist thought that have a more economically based argument to them, but basically it has a tendancy to end up describing a conspiracy of all men of all classes against women of all classes... Which is not really helpful for class consciousness.

--- G.

[mentalbunny]

Well it's not easy to escape the typical beliefs of this society so occasionally you have to bear with people, often girls, who like their "special" status and are happy to be nothing but sex objects. At least in my experience girls are mainly interested in finding a guy, not in living their lives. maybe this isn't true and not a fair representaion but it's what it looks like.

[redstar2000]

From what I can recall, it seems to me that the threads on abortion seem to contain the most outspokenly anti-woman rhetoric on the board. As always, my "knee-jerk" communist reaction is to give the bastards hell.

I have no problem with feminism that takes any form except that which explicitly supports capitalism or takes off into the neo-puritanical wilderness.

But, SenoraChe, I have a request: whenever you see something that you perceive as "anti-feminist" or "anti-women", tell us about it.

In a sense, we guys have to be "trained" to see things the way women see them; to perceive the implied "put-down" that we would otherwise not notice.

That's doable; a lot of white people have learned to perceive the "socially acceptable" forms of racism and reject them. There's no reason that I can see why us guys can't learn to perceive the "socially acceptable" forms of sexism and reject those as well.

Presuming, of course, that we are willing to learn.

:cool:

The English language is very democratic. Spellings like "womyn" and "humyn" are "motions on the floor"...if people find them useful, they will inevitably be adopted. The use of inclusive forms that were formerly considered masculine (waiters, actors) to now include women as well is likewise a "motion on the floor" and one that appears to be winning the vote.

[hazard]

dhul fiqar hit the nail most squarely, I think

there has been a split between feminism and socialism

in my case, I attribute this split due to intentional capitalist posturing and value loading. redstar identified the source of this posturing in the abortion issue.

I cannot,a s a result, support feminism as it is currently defined. I am, however, vastly in support of the women's movement as defined in the communist manifesto. there is a huge difference between both of these ideas. in any case, socialists, feminists AND environmentalists all have the same source, which is communism. the modern mutations of these groups reflect only their predominance within society. as such, feminism is the most mutated since it reflects the largest and most influential sect of the three splinter branches. socialism cannot really be modified and can only be satiated while environmentalism reflects such a small pocket of society that it is similarly left untouched.
it should be the goal, as communists, to unify the splinter groups back into the commune.

[Soul Rebel]

actually from all my readings feminism has very much supported socialism. The only school of feminst thought that has supported capitalism has been conservative feminists, who i do not consider to be feminists. These are Republican womyn who have benefited from every oppressive system that exploits others. Liberal feminists also in some ways dont challenge capitalism directly, however this does not apply to all feminisms.

I mean from Jane Addams to the Redstockings, feminists have mostly always supported socialism. Like i said before the feminist movement is not just about gender oppression, but it also deals with racism, homophobia, and classism. As a result most feminists have denounced capitalism because they believe it is really what has fostered all these -isms. If you study all the feminisms ( mostly Marxist/socialist, multicultural, global, ecofem which has like 5 different categories in itself, radical-cultural, radical-libertarian, and existenalist fem) you will find that all of them are connected in some way through their opposition of capitalism.

[hazard]

it has to do with what dhul said, rather specifically

feminism refocuses the problems of society from class to gender. socialism is all about the problems of society on a basis of class divisions while feminism is all about the problems of society on a basis of gender division.

to me, its clearly a red herring form of distraction. capitalism has MUCh to gain by difusing the women's movement from a class based struggle and into a gender based one.

as I see it, THERE ARE differences between he genders and "equality", as feminists claim to be attempting, is impossible because of this. unlike class differences, which are superficial and not truly existant, gender differences are REAL and cannot be changed. it is better to alter that which is artificial before attempting to alter what is a necessary coponent of existence. namely, TWO GENDERS.

[Soul Rebel]

actually gender is socially constructed, it is sex that is biologically constructed. also there are actually more differences among womyn than there are among womyn and men, which feminism has concentrated on. also, feminism has acknowledged that there are some biological differences that exist, such as reproductive. however this should not mean that there should be a hierarchy, maltreatment, or differential treatment. to be equal does not mean that everything about us has to be the same. to be equal also means to acknowledge differences and to respect those differences, to not hold people back because of them.

as feminists we are not saying we want to be exactly like men or even treated like men, we just dont want to be held back due to the fact that we are womyn. we are saying that both men and womyn need to be liberated from socially constructed gender lives so we can actually live happily.

[hazard]

so you understand what I mean, then, when I say "gender" I mean sex. and not sex as it pertains to an act, but as it pertains to the difference between the species on a basis of their reproductive components.

[Soul Rebel]

Yeah, at first i thought you were saying that there really were gender differences. Thats why i went through the whole explanation. I thought that you were suggesting that the expectations and roles assigned to men and womyn by society, such as breadwinner/aggressiveness and domestic/passive, were naturally real. But now that i see you were talking about biology, i see your point.

[Guest1]

Feminism does not refocus the cause from class differences to gender differences. That's bullshit, no offense. Would you put down the black civil rights movement because it "refocuses the cause"?

The fact of the matter is, class elimination is useless if we still discriminate against womyn. What's the point? What, you wanna wait for one before the other? Why?

There is a place for it within our ideology. No one here complains about pot activists fighting for the right to smoke, or palestinians fighting for independance (which is definitely against our internationalism in the long run, but must be supported).

Sure, there are FORMS of feminism that are unacceptable, just as certain forms of "socialism" are unacceptable (leninism for most of us is out of the question), doesn't mean you toss it out.

Get a hold of yourselves.

(Edited by Che y Marijuana at 12:36 am on May 14, 2003)

[hazard]

this is the point

modern feminism has its roots not only in the wmen's mvement of the early century, which was a GOOD movement, but the communist movement of the sixties. from the communist movement, there are 3 factions. socialists, environmentalists and feminists. these factions were created by a "divide and conquer" stretegy of the capitalists. while socialists and environmentalists STILL blame capitalism for their problems, feminists do not. they blame gender(sex) differences.

what I would like to ask is which forms of feminism you find unnacceptable. as it is, it would be foolish to argue that a womens movement was not necessary or is still not necessary. clearly, Marx made this definition a clear one. what I would also like to know is WHERE women are not treated, already, on an equal level as men? we are all equally slaves and equally exploited for our labour. the BIG problem is this exploitation, and not whether we are exploited equally.

modern feminism only compounds the complexity of capitalism instead of simplifying its problems.

[Larissa]

I see there's a lot I have to learn still...(sigh) and I thought we were all human beings...

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from hazard on 5:44 am on May 14, 2003
this is the point

modern feminism has its roots not only in the wmen's mvement of the early century, which was a GOOD movement, but the communist movement of the sixties. from the communist movement, there are 3 factions. socialists, environmentalists and feminists. these factions were created by a "divide and conquer" stretegy of the capitalists. while socialists and environmentalists STILL blame capitalism for their problems, feminists do not. they blame gender(sex) differences.

what I would like to ask is which forms of feminism you find unnacceptable. as it is, it would be foolish to argue that a womens movement was not necessary or is still not necessary. clearly, Marx made this definition a clear one. what I would also like to know is WHERE women are not treated, already, on an equal level as men? we are all equally slaves and equally exploited for our labour. the BIG problem is this exploitation, and not whether we are exploited equally.

modern feminism only compounds the complexity of capitalism instead of simplifying its problems.


Hazard- actually feminism still does blame capitalism. I have explained it a bunch of times. Feminists arent directly blaming men, most often they are saying that men are being driven by capitalism to do what they do- which is to except unearned privilege, destroy land, etc. You really have to take the time to learn feminist thought to see this. Feminism doesnt blame men because as i mentioned before feminism is a movement and theory which focuses on intersectionality- how race, class, and gender work together to form unique systems of oppression and experience. Here they have been one of the first groups to point out that you cannot fight one without the others or eliminate one oppression, all of them depend on each other. So feminism rahter blames society's structure, which includes capitalism. If anything earlier feminists (19th century Am. fems) would have blamed men directly, but later fems. (2nd wave and on) blame capitalism.

And i find it a bit offensive to say that earlier feminism is the good feminism. Currently we are in third wave fem., and i believe it is just as good. As times change so does the road of the movement. First wave fought for abolision of slavery, child labor laws, welfare, the vote, etc. Because second wave no longer had to fight for these things their goals changed: war efforts, abortion (roe-v-wade), birth control, wages (glass ceiling for white womyn, steel wall for minority womyn), domesticity, education, civil rights, sexual violence, environmentalism, etc. Third wave fem. is now fighting for reproductive rights (which once again are threatened), destructive media images, sexual violence, wages (still...), capitalism (which is why many feminists have opened up independent stores or companies- Righteous Babe Records, babes in toyland, bloodroot, etc), also third wave has focused on the concept of multiculturalism (acknowledging and celebrating differences) and helping the third world, especially it womyn (who have been used as objects of war, constantly exposed to sexual violence, and have been punished by globalism.)

And as i mentioned before- the only form of feminism i would critique are those conservative-Republican womyn who says that they are feminists, when they really aren't. Also, i would criticize psychoanalytical feminism, which has taken into account the theories of freud in trying to explaint the position of womyn in society.

As for where womyn are still treated unequally: there are many areas. One of course is in the work force: womyn still to this day still get paid less. When compared to white men, white women only make 72-78 cents for every dollar. Black womyn, however, make even less than white womyn. Hispanic womyn make less than both black and white womyn. Also if you look at female dominated fields they recieve low salaries, however, when a male enters the field, that male gets paid higher and can quickly move up to a higher position. But its not just at work, i mean you dont males dont have to deal with the double standard of sexuality (virgin/slut), double standard of work (stay at home mom/working mother), sexual violence, male athletics getting more funding than female athletics, getting differential treatment in the ed. system, etc. I mean even the fact that we have seperate history months tells you something, just as different history months for ethnicities does. I could go on about this forever. I am not saying men do not deal with these issues: its just not to the extent that womyn have to deal with them and it doesnt rule their lives as much.



(Edited by SenoraChe at 5:02 pm on May 14, 2003)

[Larissa]

SeñoraChe, you should move down here, this country is sort of a "matriarcado". :-)

[Exploited Class]

It was feminism that enlightened me socialism and the problems with our ruling class. Most feminists do not blame men in general although the men they are in hands reach of get their anger and frustration directed at them. The white male is a representation of the upper ruling class, all white males were in power of everything in this country. They don't blame white males sitting to the left or right of them, and most know it is the capitalist system structure that allows this to survive.

But I also learned a lot about how much religion is bullshit from feminism. You want to talk about the most oppressed people, hello Adam and that evil fruit giving ***** Eve. So Feminism has taught me a lot about class structure and capitalism's ability and want to keep a second class citizen.

As far as this Womyn, Woman thing is concerned. I think it is silly, as silly as me going from nigger, to negro, to colored to African American to Black..ect..ect it doesn't change a thing how society will progress in a whole to that race, nor will spelling woman any differently.

Sure as a little girl it is overwhelming to see huMAN, MANkind, HIStory, woMAN, woMEN, MANhole so on and so forth. But they are only words and they have about meaning in the end as the word Friend being Fri End, or Principal being Prince Pal. Sticking a Y in or out is not going to put anybody on equal stance with eachother or break bonds of control.

Things that are effective for equality.
1. Being able to vote.
2. Own Land. (not that I think one should own land)
3. Going to school and Higher education.
4. People of your minority holding high positions.
5. Reps like yourself in government offices.
6. Being able to chose who you married.
7. Being able to chose not to marry.
8. Chosing what to do with your body.
9. Opportunity to do anything anybody else is doing minus of course biological impossibilities.
10. Keeping your lastname
11. Self-confidence
12. Proper Role Models.
13. Military Enrollment

These things will propel people to equality much faster than any spelling ever will. If I am incorrect, then tell me how in just 100 years we overcame 3000 years of harsh oppression. It wasn't no godamn letter change.

Look at where we are now as a gender, we are arguing on how much we make an hour, when will we have a freaking female president and if we can fight in a combat zone which I guess we already are.

Spelling women with a y makes us look petty, insecure and way too radical. If everything was 100% equal with everybody looking at each others as equal would you care that woman was spelled woman and not with a Y? I sure in the hell wouldn't, and changing it won't get everybody to a 100% state.

[Lefty]

I support equality of the sexes.

I also support women making fools of themselves by not shaving or bathing and saying "I am womyn, hear me roar!" They make me laugh.
I mean, I don't care if a woman doesn't shave because she is making a statement, it is still just plain nasty.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Lefty on 8:52 pm on May 14, 2003
I support equality of the sexes.

I also support women making fools of themselves by not shaving or bathing and saying "I am womyn, hear me roar!" They make me laugh.
I mean, I don't care if a woman doesn't shave because she is making a statement, it is still just plain nasty.

Well I don't know why anybody would purposely chose not bath, maybe not daily because you really don't need to bathe daily, but how is not shaving gross?

How can having hair on your body be gross? I can understand enjoying smoothness more but how can not shaving have the attribute of being gross?

If you had never seen a shaven women before you wouldn't think it gross.

becareful not to give negative attributes to something just because it isn't your preferance.

[Soul Rebel]

sorry to tell ya- you haven't undone 3000 years of oppression. It still exists as much as ever. sure things have changed a bit, but oppression still exists.

And as for the spelling thing- i dont think it is silly, nor do i believe that it makes us look petty or insecure- i actually think it does the opposite. As i have mentioned before many times- it is a way of building identification and it does make sense. womyn's history has often been ignored or forgotten and this is sort of a way of reclaiming it. and the people who do spell it that way dont do it to convince others to do it- its a strong political statement. And for saying that words are only words- its bull. Language is very much an important part of structuring society, relationships. It forms how we look at the world. This has been a central argument in linguistics as well as with any social field like sociology.

And whats wrong with being radical? being radical is what brings change. liberal fems. during first wave fem. were seen as radical and look what they did for us. who the hell cares how we look? if someone sees me as radical then i know i am doing my job and doing it right.

As for your list of actions- they have been done and still things havent changed. Doing those things means shit basically. Doing those things doesnt guarantee anything like change.

Sorry if i sound mean, not my intention :)

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Larissa on 5:55 pm on May 14, 2003
SeñoraChe, you should move down here, this country is sort of a "matriarcado". :-)


I just might:) *I would have to stay with you of course :)

[Zombie]

Quote: from exploitedclass on 4:21 pm on May 14, 2003
becareful not to give negative attributes to something just because it isn't your preferance.

He stated his opinion, and I pretty much share the same. Where's the problem with that?

(Edited by Zombie at 2:14 am on May 15, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

Sorry, the shaving thing is a big issue of mine.

I really hate how men don't have to shave but women do. Oh ok, you say, most men do and most people prefer men to, but it's not at all as major as for women, who have to remove all hair except from their scalp, mabe a bit in the pubic region, and a thin strip above their eyes. All other hair must either be removed or negligible. I hate that. I'm naturally a fairly hairy person, if you know what nI mean, and I hate the attitudes of society that means I have to spend hours on hair removal before I can wear a fucking swimming costume! We're supposed to have hair, deal with it! As long as it's not all yucky it's fine. Some soft silky hair is nice, ok?!! I like hair! If you don't have hair that's cool too, but I actually quite like it, even though society did quite a good job in the past trying to make me not too, and i still feel this pressure to remove my own hair.

Anyway, hazard you don't sound like a leftist, you sound like a conservative. I'm sorry if you get offended but really, I'm not keen on what you're saying. Why do you seem so intent in removing or preventing women from having any control?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If I ever seemed anti-feministic, I would like to dismiss this acusation now. I am a strong supporter of the feminist movement and all efforts to establish equality and unity among all.

[Umoja]

I probubly am also viewed as Anti-Feminist in some light, but I largely support the movement, since it's trying to fix the difference between an actual physical and mental and social(!) group in human society. So, despite what you may hear about my (odd) views on Abortion, I'm as pro-feminist as a male ignorant of the entire feminist movement could be.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 11:55 pm on May 15, 2003
If I ever seemed anti-feministic, I would like to dismiss this acusation now. I am a strong supporter of the feminist movement and all efforts to establish equality and unity among all.


Please dont take what i said as an accusation- i was just stating that i saw some of those feeling, but i didnt specify. i wasnt directing it at anyone. it was just a concern of mine thats all. :)

[hazard]

umoja

I feel the same way about you. your stance in regards to this issue has become so par that it is itself conservative. for instance, your implied belief that sex differences take precedence over the class struggle. that is far more conservative than my belief that the class struggle is the source of all societal ailments.

if you want to fix society, you must start at the source. attempting to fix it one piece at a time is not the answer. I see feminism as a conservative obstacle. it redirects the attention into a literally unsolvable problem that focuses upon uncorrectable instances. so, while us "leftists" argue and bicker over all of these unsolvable obstacles, the "rightists" continue along on their merry, exploitive way. not on my watch.

look at it like a complex maze. originally, there was one route, one branch. the communist movement proper. unimpeded, as it once was, we communists had a direct path to revolution. the capitalists (bourgeoisie) saw this and fragmented our movement to impede the path to revolution. and of the fragmented groups, the feminists are clearly the most conservative. I mean, women's rights date back almost to the dawn of time. socialist's (communism light) are only as old as marx while environmentalism is hardly older than this century.

I find it surprising that a site like this has ANY members that consider feminism even remotely liberal. its a bad attribution that doesn't apply. look up the words liberal and conservative, and show me how it apply's to feminism. then I'll show you how it doesn't apply.

just because many traditionally conservative factions are opposed to the feminist banner of abortion doesn't mean that many liberal factions can't also be opposed to it. as a communist, there are FAR MORE MANY reasons to oppose abortion than there are to support it. namely the profit motive involved in abortion, and the way in which it is twisted into a gender(sex) issue when it should not be. I only mention this because, as RedStar pointed out, this issue causes the "knee jerk" reaction. and I don't believe he was simply referring to those, like I, who oppose it, but to those, like you, who support it.

you can call me conservative, but you know better than that. I will call you the same, and I will PROVE that you are far more conservative than I.

did you know that the Liberal party of Canada is comprised almost entirely of Roman Catholics? Bet you'd call them conservative instead. Maybe you should consider the words you use before you start applying them, blindly and thoughtlessly, like ranks and titles.

[Soul Rebel]

I must come to hazard's defense on this one. Although him and i have argued relentlessly over abortion (he is against and i am not), just because he is against it doesnt mean he is a conservative. There are feminist who are against abortion- for example, radical-cultural feminists. As i mentioned before there is not such thing as a feminist bible or handbook. There are many avenues of feminist thought- this is why there are so many different categories of feminists. There are things feminists agree on and there are things feminists disagree on.

And people- you cannot put one source of oppression ahead of another. They are all equally important. You cannot have one without the others- they need each other to survive. So it really is pointless to argue about which is more important to fight. For things to change, all of them have to be fought at once- they cannot be separated. Intersectionality!!!! However, I can say that capitalism is the root of all the oppressions. It started each one- all have been started by economic reasons. But this still does not give us the right to rank them. And like i said many times: feminism has acknowledged capitalism as the source and has fought it fiercely, so to say it is a conservative obstacle is silly.

And you're right hazard- enviromentalism is very new. It basically began in 1962 with Rachel Carson's book The Silent Spring, in which she informed americans that if they continue their abusive treatment of the Earth and animals, destruction of the environment, we would have no future. We would ruin our lives.

[hazard]

umoja - actually that lat post was directed more at mental bunny, and specifically, a comment made by that person. sorry for any confusion

[hazard]

senorache:

I must admit fault on my stance, as well. I tend to lump feminist's into one large group when you, have many times, pointed out that feminism is itself more varied than I have argued.

and again, I support MANY of the feminist causes. equal pay for equal work. anti-harassment in the workplace. removal of sex stereotypes. protection from sexual exploitation in advertisements and movies. actually, I am only opposed to the abortion issue. and this issue is a very tricky, touchy, and inflamatory one.

unfortunately, it is not one I am able to bend on. similalry, many feminist's also seem unable to bend on it. it inspires strong reactions from all parties involved. anyway, as long as there are SOME points of agreement there is room to reach compromise on other matters of importance.

[Umoja]

I don't know whether to respond fully to your post then Hazard, but I'll try.

One must not forget that gender inequalities have existed before we had any system of economics. Most mammals strangely are more male-oriented. So, it's almost a natural problem in the human mindset that's evolved regarding the relationships between males and females. I am not a "communist" though, so I don't think class struggle is the sole problem either.

[hazard]

well, I think I made that point pretty clear.

men and women ARE different. feminisim is an attempt to create "true" equality between that which is, at a default setting, different.

you ever see like a two year old trying to jam a square shape into a round hole? thats what feminism is kinda like.

in some ways there are ways to circle the square, but to achieve a truly round shape is simply impossible.

in any case, as capitalism is a system of explitation, BOTH sexes are being mistreated. communism is really about addressng a social malaise that effects ALL of society and not just that which effects one sex. also, under communism, creating equality amongst the sexes is MUCH MORE possible as eqaulity amongst the classess has been achieved through their elimination.

[Ian]

I think my views are summed up nicely in these quotes

The legal inequality of the two partners bequeathed to us from earlier social conditions is not the cause but the effect of the economic oppression of women. ...

The modern individual family is founded upon the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife ...

... 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 that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished. ...

What we can conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual - and that will be the end of it.

(Frederick Engels (1884), The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State)

The few words I boldened are my favourite

(Edited by Ian Rocks at 12:26 pm on May 16, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from hazard on 2:41 am on May 16, 2003
well, I think I made that point pretty clear.

men and women ARE different. feminisim is an attempt to create "true" equality between that which is, at a default setting, different.

you ever see like a two year old trying to jam a square shape into a round hole? thats what feminism is kinda like.

in some ways there are ways to circle the square, but to achieve a truly round shape is simply impossible.

in any case, as capitalism is a system of explitation, BOTH sexes are being mistreated. communism is really about addressng a social malaise that effects ALL of society and not just that which effects one sex. also, under communism, creating equality amongst the sexes is MUCH MORE possible as eqaulity amongst the classess has been achieved through their elimination.




That is complete shit. The average wage in the UK is higher for men than it is for women in the same types of Jobs. The majority of senior managment officials in companys is dominated by men.

Women are not less able or skilled at these jobs so why should they be oppressed like this?

And they tell me that my idiology is skrewed!

[Dhul Fiqar]

Ian Rocks: Very interesting quotes, but I have a basic problem with the idea of removing all economic considerations from the mating process of humans. Not because I don't think it's laudable, but because it's unrealistic. A woman is always going to care if her children will be able to have the best things in life or not, it is like that with all species.

The female always has to choose the best partner, not just for her, but for her future offspring. If a fat ugly midget is able to raise ten kids with every opportunity afforded to them (and a life of luxury for the wife), that's what very many women will choose, not because they are shallow but because it is the nature of the female gender to seek security above all else. This is what opens women up to economic exploitation by men, the basic need for someone to share the burden of childrearing.

At the same time it's the basic nature of the male gender to seek out as many possible carriers for your genetic material as possible, again not because they are shallow but because that's how they are hardwired.

It's biology, folks, but as humans we certainly can transcend it to some point, just not completely. It would take a major change in the way resource management work in the entire world to remove money as a major factor in the interplay of the sexes. My hunch it would just be replaced by other sorts of resource bargaining.

Let's just remember that this goes both ways, and as cold as it may seem, gender relations are based uppon an implied social contract. This means both parties are in a position to "exploit" the other, although they may still not be essentially equal.


--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 11:21 pm on May 16, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

Hmm I don't like what you are saying, Dhul, but I'm not in the position to say anything to the opposite cos I'm so wiped out from exams and revision (which is why all my recent posts have been so shit, sorry people!).

hazard, i think we will just have to agree to differ. I don't mind people being against abortion on a personal level, as long as they can see that you can't get rid of it. No one actually likes aboriton, or no one sane anyway, it's just a necessary evil.

Anyway that's irrelevant, what I want to discuss is how everyone's oppressed by the media's idea of beauty, and I think women are the most pressurised by this, so I want to know what guys really think is beautiful, or more specifically what is not beautiful? Actally maybe I should start a similar thread elsewhere!

[Dhul Fiqar]

Mentalbunny: which part? ;)

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that this thread belongs in Theory...I'd move it there myself, but I've already been criticized for moving threads too often, so would someone like to step forward?

Ian, thanks for the quote from Engels. I'm always pleasantly surprised by how refreshing and even "cutting edge" those guys sound after all these years.

Duhl, about the biological explanations for "mate selection", I just don't know. That is, I'm sure some of that sort of thing takes place, but how much and how important it is seems to me to be extremely difficult to ascertain.

If we assume a social order in which every young woman knows with 100% certainty that if she chooses to have a baby, that baby will go "first class" through its childhood...because "first class" is all there is, how will that change the way women choose their mates?

I could see some women "competing" for the attentions of a "high status male"...and men, perhaps, competing for the attentions of a "high status female". But it would all be subjective...there wouldn't really be much in the way of material gain involved.

Beyond this it's hard to say. You know there is a wide range of "masculine" and "feminine" behavior. Some guys (we know who we are) will always have a "roving eye"...others are perfectly content with one mate for a year or a lifetime. I think there will be more women who will be, shall I say, sexually adventurous...who will behave like some of us guys. I think that's ok. :biggrin:

Mentalbunny, there is simply no telling what will appeal to "guys in general"...like women, men are individuals and one guy's "babe" will almost certainly be another guy's "pig". Setting aside physical characteristics, the biggest "turn-off" in a woman that I know of is stupidity. That's not a problem in your case.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:07 am on May 17, 2003)

[Pete]

I read the first two pages of this thread and the last one, so slap me if I say something that was said in the third and fourth.

Many of the feminists that I see take equality to a ridiculous level. Personally I see all special interest groups as promoting inequality instead of the opposite, for example the Black City Council of Toronto. Really, why exclude someone based on race when your goal is to make sure that that never happens? It is hypocritical. I also recall an event when feminists would not allow men to take part in a fundraising campaign, because they where men. It was a mother-daughter walk, but what is wrong if some one of the other sex wants to help out your cause? Why do you shun them? I have no problem with equality. That is my goal, but to replace a patriarchy with a matriarchy is foolish.

Just my input on this little debate. As I said if this has already been said slap me, and I am sure I have completely misunderstood feminism because of these horrible examples. That is the nature of the media, creating moral panic to change the individual; it is easier to 'fix' one then all.

[Dhul Fiqar]

redstar: You're quite right that these are extreme generalization, essentially it would be more correct to talk about feminine and masculine traits than "women do this" and "men do that".

I also concur that in a (economically) classless society this materialistic part of human mating habits wouldl be totally redundant, I'm just 100% sure such a society will ever be achieved.

As for moving threads too much, I think you can never move threads too much so long as they are moved from the wrong place to the right place. Don't let any evil trolls tell you otherwise ;)

[Dhul Fiqar]

#Moderation Mode

Doing the dirty work ;)

Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=835)

[redstar2000]

"you ever see like a two year old trying to jam a square shape into a round hole? thats what feminism is kinda like."

Interesting choice of metaphor there, hazard.

Be that as it may, I think you should be more explicit. What exactly do you think feminists are trying to do that they shouldn't be doing? What jobs are women trying to perform that "should" be left to men? What knowledge is "unsuitable" for women? In what way are women so "different" from men that it makes a real difference what social roles they "should" or "should not" aspire to either before or after the revolution?

To say that men and women are "different" doesn't really say very much, unless you can be specific and show how it matters. And then prove it.

Otherwise, it just boils down to some male supremacist blowing smoke out of his ass.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:29 am on May 18, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

Indeed, I haven't really seen any convincing examples of specific and concrete areas in which women and men should be "kept seperate", for lack of a better phrase for hazard's position.

Just because there are differences between men and women does not mean they cannot be socially equal, in fact the "they're different, don't pretend they're the same" is the exact same argument many if not most racists use to defend their positions today, I had a similar conversation in OI with a white supremist just yesterday.

Yes they are different, this is obvious. But like redstar2000 said, it just sounds like bigotry if you don't have a very convincing argument for why these differences are meaningful in the social context in question.

I think we also need to re-examine what it is we're debating, so it would be very helpful if you made it clear what specifically bothers you about feminism, and what doesn't.

Because otherwise it's going to turn into a sort of back and forth, where people on one side tell you that "feminists just want equality, not superiority" and you on the other saying "but they are different, you see."

Lastly, the terms "equal" and "identical" are NOT the same, and I think you are arguing from the stance that women and men are not identical. This in itself has nothing to do with political or social equality...

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 10:00 pm on May 18, 2003)

[Pete]

Yesterday at my termination interview at my current place of employment I was given a long-winded semi-technical reason why guys are not on cash and girls do not do carry-outs other than one full time employee. It came from my 'human resources' (a disgusting term) manager and basically said that guys do not want to do cash and girls do not want to do the other job which is so obviously false I had to point it out, and get the same speel all over again.

Some times people do not realize that by creating these stereotypes that some will conform to them. (I know I have been speaking a lot on this issue of social control through the selffullfilling prophecy and moral panics, but really it makes A LOT of sense. Sociology is a great science to explain socialism in;))

Personally I want to know if I was being extremely ignorant in my post or not. It is bugging me because I think I was and no one has replied to it!!....

p.s. I quit my job for a fulltime position outside doing manual labour over a parttime inside retail job...

[Dhul Fiqar]

No, actually I agree with both of your last two posts. There are a lot of people out there preaching equality and practicing a policy of their own superiority, which is a big problem because it does damage to the moral authority of people really fighting for equality.

However, affirmative action and such steps often described as "reverse racism" are in some cases necessary to turn around institutionalized injustices that have taken root to an extent where it's nearly impossible for disadvantaged groups to ever get their foot in certain doors.

So it's not always as simple as "the best person should get the job", because sometimes the only way certain groups can ever get in a position to ever be a favoured candidate is by establishing a precedent and giving them opportunity to qualify. The classic example is excluding access to certain education, but not to the jobs who require that education, making it an essentially hidden "ban" on going into that line of work.

In any case, inteersting story from your job. I really hate middle-management types and "human resource managers" and other heartless corporate scum like that.

I once worked in a supermarket where all the girls worked on the tellers and all the guys worked in stock, meat, vegetables, collecting those stupid shopping carts from the parking lot and etc.

Lots of girls applied for those "male" jobs, but were denied on the grounds that they were too weak to lift boxes (you should see some of the scrawny little guys doing that work with no problem though!). Some guys have applied for teller positions, but usually they are turned down.

In fact I think I only remember two male tellers the whole time, and they were actually just doing that part time when there were too many customers to manage, and they were regular "male employees" most of the day.

There is no good reason a reasonably fit girl couldn't do the "male" jobs, and no reason a resonably honest guy couldn't work the teller, people just seem to fall into place within institutions sometimes, accepting the stereotype assigned to them.

--- G.

[Saint-Just]

There are differences between males and females. They seem to all stem from sexual predispositions. For example women tend to be less aggressive, they tend to have a higher propensity to 'mother' things, they look for different things in a relationship. This is only true to a limited extent and can vary. I cannot say how much of this is from a natural predisposition or if it is builot socially. If you believe Freud you will think that these have massive consequences and that these differences come from the natural sexual desires.

This does not mean that women should be treated differently and that they are inferior. They are stil capable of the same levels of thought as males and are suited to most jobs as well as males.

My theory is that there is anti-feminist sentiment here since once you get a difficult girlfriend...

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 6:02 pm on May 18, 2003)

[Soul Rebel]

The whole womyn are more nurturing is a socially constructed concept. If it was biological, it would be universal. Since it is not universal is is obviously socially constructed. If you look at studies done by anthropologists, such as Margrete Mead, you will see that "mothering" varies from culture to culture. In some cultures mothers actually despice their children and so they show no compassion. In others it is the father who is more nurturing. Then there are some in which both parents care for the child and are more nurturing- this is in more egalitarian societies. Then we have what is found in the West- the mother as responsible and nurturing for the child. Also parenting is not a natural instinct- you learn how to parent. You dont automatically know what to do with your child- you learn. I mean think about it- if it was natural do you think that there would be such a need for books on parenting or having to ask your friends and parents what to do.

The same goes for aggressiveness- it is socially constructed. People learn how to be aggressive. And since it is considered a masculine quality men learn to act out aggressively while womyn act passivly because that is their socially expected feminine role.

The only real difference between men and womyn is the reproductive system. It is the only difference that truly exists. Everything else is socially constructed.

[Pete]

-Not trying to be offensive- I'd be scarred shitless of an army of female soldiers during that time of the month (and since they train together it owuld be fairly co-ordinated!!)

[hazard]

redstar:

yeah, I realize that metaphor could be taken to hold an alternate, albeit unintended, meaning. I should clarify.

it is relation to what most of us know as what must necessarilly be true. namely, differences between the sexes MUST exist for a species to exist. a-sexual procreation is the alternate. the "circle/square" thing is in regards to this. SOME things MUST be different, and this is where I see the attempts of some feminists to continue "equallizing" as an impossible task. its as if they don't comprehend that MEN and WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. which is analogous to "someone" (the child) beng unable to distinguish between a square shape and a circle shape. child was the nicest entity I could think of that would be naturally unable to make such a distinction.

what does everybody think about those feminists that believe all current men must be made accountable for the "crimes' of men in the past? to me this is clearly marx's idea of the "past ruling the present" as under capitalism in full effect.

what about the idea to stop "men's violence against women"? why not just stop "violence against women"? why not just stop "violence" altogether?
I'm offended as a male by statements such as this. it implies that "men's violence against men" is acceptable, that "violence against men" is more acceptable than "violence against women" and finally that "violence" is only WRONG if it involves women.

stuff like this is probably what makes many anti-feminists as angry as they seem to get. for me, I'm just insulted and a little saddened by it.

[Dhul Fiqar]

SenoraChe: It hasb een conclusively proven that testosterone is linked with heightened levels of aggression, we happen to have a lot more of it in our bodies. Social construction aside, the aggression levels of men and women can be manipulated with hormone supplements, showing that there is indeed a biological propensity for aggression in the male species, because they produce more testosterone.

Secondly, yes there are documented cases of matriarchal societies, and societies where men take responsibility for raising the children. Yet in almost all societies known to science, with the exception of a few isolated ones discovered just this century, it has been the other way around. That is one hell of a coincidence, or did all these societies manage to interact back in the stonage to produce the same exact societal environment?

Sorry, it's a promising theory and Mead is a good scientist, but I'm not prepared to throw away the vast majority of studied cases as relevant just because there have been notable exceptions...

--- G.

[hazard]

this might sound stupid, but if women aren't more nuturing, why do they provide the means of nourishment to children? I am, er, ah, um, referring to the mammary glands.

to me, this is a biological indication that women ARE more nourishing, as in nuturing, than men. women, in the absence of mass marketed baby formula, MUST remain close to babies in order to feed them. or something like that.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that in the vast majority of cases since the dawn of civilization, the woman has ended up with much of the responsibility of raising the child.

Men routinely walk away from that responsibility after they get bored with the idea of having a screaming kid around, yet only some isolated cases have been found of women bringing themselves to do this.

It happens, but if nurturing instincts are totally socially constructed there should be a reasonable percentage of deviance from that social norm as with all others, so it should happen all the time. That just isn't the case...

It has also been shown that women are more physically in tune with the baby for the first few months.

I guess the most famous study was one that found that playing tapes of babies crying had a much better chance of waking a woman up if it was HER baby. They would sleep through other babies crying much more easily, but men were unaffected. I'm gonna see if I can dig the study up, I read about it in some biology class many years ago.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 4:19 pm on May 19, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

hazard, just because something is or was, doesn't mean it always will be.

Yes women are seen generally as more nurturing but with technology and other things it doesn't necessarily have to be so forever. I'm not saying anything in particular in this post, just that we shouldn't get stuck in a rut of the same ideas. Thiings can change and might be better for a change. People say time changes things but in fact it is humans who must change them (that's a paraphrase from some quote but I can't remeber whose).

[Soul Rebel]

Im getting really sick from arguing about feminism- I feel like we keep arguing the same damn points over and over again. I also get the impression that some of you still dont understand what feminism is and still believe the same old shit that has been taught. Sadly many of you also perpetuate the same old stereotypes that exist- many of you support a patriarchal belief system. So I am just gonna say this:
1) Feminists do realize that there are differences between men and womyn. They are only biological differences- reproduction. And feminists have also stated many times that to be equal does not mean people have to be exactly the same. To be equal means to recognize differences and respect them. It means to not objectify or hold people down because of these differences. Many of you have seemed to miss this point over and over again. You assume that feminists want womyn to be like men or vise-versa, when they are not.
2) When you discuss feminism- study the actual types of feminism that exist. There are many different types, so it is ridiculous and ignorant to continue generalizing by saying "feminists want..." It is one thing to discuss a shared belief by feminists, but to say that all feminists want or do the same things cannot be done.
3) Men and womyn's position in society is social. Masculinity and femininity are socially constructed. They rarely have any biological base. As for stating that in every society the same thing can be found is complete bull. This is why there are the words "gender" and "sex"- gender referring just to social position and sex referring to biology, which many unfortunately believe to be the same thing or dont know the difference. Many studies that have been done have been done by Westerners studying either western societies or studying other societies with an ethnocentric view point. The western view is not necessarily the right view- it just tries to instill a certain set of roles and continue tradition. If our position was due to biology it would be found in all societies- it would be universal. We learn our positions- they are not natural. Men are taught that womyn are to take care of children and so they walk away- it is not because of nature, but because of what we are taught. You can see it even in our society- and its not isolated cases. If womyn were more nurturing and had the so-called "motherly instinct" all womyn would want children first of all. Second of all, we would basically raise our kids the same way because if it was natural we would be programed the same.

Its just such a shame that many of you cannot get away from a western mentality. I would expect a lot more from you. If you really want to make a change or improve society you need to step away from this mentality and you need to drop patriarchal views. And im sorry if you're offended, but this is how i feel.

[vox]

Jesus, I can't believe what I'm reading.....

Hey, guys. When was the last time a group of women standing on the street whistled at you and said that you need "summa dis" while they grabbed their crotches? What's that, you say? It never happened to you? That happens to women every day.

Saying that shouldn't happen is feminism.

The evolutionary psychology arguments being presented in this thread are right-wing bullshit, and every Leftist should KNOW what I'm talking about. If you don't, look it up. No one here is going to spoon feed you.

And you want to know something else? Marx thought that the oppresive system of capitalism oppressed ALL people, including capitalists, for it forces them to fit into an economically determined mode of behavior, and Marx was very much for the free development of the individual. Well guess what? Patriarchal culture does the same damned thing.

I repuest that everyone go read the essay Rape is Normal (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0903-05.htm). It's not very long at all, and I think it will give many people here a very different perspective on things.

You know something? We could get rid of all "class" oppression and still lynch niggers, couldn't we? And maybe gas a few Jews? Or a lot of them? I mean, all it takes is the belief that there is a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE and then the rules for the "normal" do not need to apply.

And that's just the thing here.

"Male" is the default factory setting in society. What is NOT male is different, is the Other, is not normal and is, indeed, ABNORMAL.

So is White.

So is Christian.

Now, which one of you are going to stand up to support white privilege? Huh? Which one of you will stand up and suppoort the oppression of non-Christians?

After all, there are norms here.

And fellas, seriously, who here doesn't think that it's a woman's job to be thin, wear a thong and put on make up every single day? After all, women are supposed to be celebrated for beauty, right?

Right?

Damn straight they are!

And that's the problem.

Maybe it's just that we want the capitalist's system of privilege taken away, not our own privilege?

That's not being a Leftist.

That's being a libertarian piece of shit.

vox

[redstar2000]

what does everybody think about those feminists that believe all current men must be made accountable for the "crimes" of men in the past?

I can't say I've ever come across this particular idea, but the real question is what would that mean in practical terms?

Would it be such a "bad thing" if we sent women to "the front of the line" for a couple of generations? You know, give them a chance to "catch up" with us guys? When the numbers suggest approximate equality in real terms, then the "special measures" can be relaxed, but kept on stand-by in case they might be needed again.

what about the idea to stop "men's violence against women"?

That's an easy one. It is less risky to use violence against women (and children and the elderly). "Special measures" should be taken against such particular forms of violence to equalize the risk to the perpetrator.

Yes, all forms of physical violence in personal relations are bad...but some are clearly much worse than others. Our policies should reflect that material reality.

SOME things MUST be different, and this is where I see the attempts of some feminists to continue "equallizing" as an impossible task.

If it truly is "impossible" then surely that will become evident after a century or two. Meanwhile, it seems to me to be a worthwhile experiment...we'd have a lot to gain if it worked.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:02 pm on May 19, 2003)

[Pete]

Redstar, your post made me think of this:

"No one steals a chicken for the same reason"

I know that is disturbing connections, but so be it. Just something to think about.

[hazard]

bunny:

I think the point was that women have a naturally tendency to be more nurturing because they are literrally designed to be more nurturing. it has been argued that feminism is an attempt to release societal imposed controls. but you seem to imply a new set of societal controls should be emplaced that allow for men to be as nurturing as women. if you are in favour of releaseing socieal imposed rules, you should similarly be opposed to the implementation of new ones.

redstar:

that was just as I assumed, that males SHOULD be punished for "crimes" committed by subsequent generations of the sex. to me, this is unnaceptable. it would be a terrible thing.

this is what I believed many feminists meant by "equality", that the past be corrected by punishing the males of the future. that really isn't equal, though, is it? I would never consider being punished for something I DID NOT do.

additionally, it is an impossibility. again o the differences between the sexes. male would have to ALLOW women to impose such an unrighteous punishment. this comes down to size and muscle mass, as well as agrression. naturally, males are more capable of forcing their will through threat of physical violence or physical violence itself. not that I condone this. my point is only that even if some strange legalislation allowed for the treatment of women as higher class citizens than men, men could ( and probably would ) reject the law and revolt against it.

I still think that a communist revolution is the best way to equalize society, for all people.

[vox]

male would have to ALLOW women to impose such an unrighteous punishment. this comes down to size and muscle mass, as well as agrression.

Only if we think of men as an organized class, and I don't think that we can.

See, I'm a man. I'm stronger than some men and weaker than others. I can fight better than some men and not as well as others. For you, that means that I have the ability to enforce my will on men who are weaker than me, but that's just simply not the case at all.

You describe a jungle existence, but then talk of communism. The two are not compatable.

Feminism, in all of its forms, means changing the patriarchal structure of society. That means that you have to give up your male privilege.

Are you willing to do that?

[hazard]

vox:

what do you think the patriarchy REALLY is? historically, the patriarchy is the rule of kings and princes, where only MALE nobility could rightfully own land.

THE PATRIARCHY HAS BEEN ELMINATED

to discuss the patriarchy, as feminists do, seems nothing more than a red herring. or, at best, it is an equivocation of the word. I'm assumig that when you say patriarchy you instead mean the father ruled household. this is not the same thing

my male priveldge is non existant. so I naturally would not have any problem giving it up.

the jungle existence I describe is kinda misrepresentative. if you completed the quotation, which I will, you may find your answer already present.

naturally, males are more capable of forcing their will through threat of physical violence or physical violence itself. not that I condone this. my point is only that even if some strange legalislation allowed for the treatment of women as higher class citizens than men, men could ( and probably would ) reject the law and revolt against it.

revolution and rejection of unjust law is the highest representation of humanity evolved away from this "jungle" law you claim I to be in favour of. my point of pointing out strength is not about oppressing others, but about rejecting oppression. it seems likely that women were forced to tolerate oppression for the same reason that men are likely to be intolerant of it.

[vox]

Okay, hazard, let's play:

You say that male privilege is nonexistent, but concrete, MATERIAL examples of it have been shown in the real world. You can't simply dismiss the facts like some damned right-winger. That's just not allowed, and you should know better.

But let's take a very close look at the quote you laid down:

naturally, males are more capable of forcing their will through threat of physical violence or physical violence itself. not that I condone this. my point is only that even if some strange legalislation allowed for the treatment of women as higher class citizens than men, men could ( and probably would ) reject the law and revolt against it

Nowhere, of course, do you suggest how, exactly, women would be a "higher class" citizen than men. Would that mean that men couldn't vote? Would it mean that men would earn less? Would it mean that men didn't have equal protection under the law? Just what, exactly, do you mean? You seem to have a penchant for throwing around unsubstantiated ideas and expecting them to be heralded as the Truth, but I'm not buying it.

The patriarchy, as I stated in a previous debate on this matter, is indeed, I think, ahistorical. However, patriarchal values can fit into various economic strategems, and they have here. I do not give primacy to the patriarchal values that capitalism embraces, but I do understand that these values aid and abet capitalism, much as racism does, by dividing the working class against itself.

That Leftists wish to perpetuate this split, citing right-wing evolutionary psychology, is pitiful.

vox

[hazard]

ah, you wish to dance? let's dance!

the only concrete examples I am interested in are those that I experience. personally and first hand. and from my personal experience I have NO PRIVLEDGES. so I necessarilly, again, don't mind giving them up.

if you did happen to look even more closely at my post, you'd understand what my point was in reference to. that was in response to a claim made by redstar which stated:

"Would it be such a "bad thing" if we sent women to "the front of the line" for a couple of generations? You know, give them a chance to "catch up" with us guys? When the numbers suggest approximate equality in real terms, then the "special measures" can be relaxed, but kept on stand-by in case they might be needed again. "

the details you ask for MAY be relevant, but don't really address the fact that my quotation was in relation to THIS quotation by redstar.

the way you view the ahistorical patriarchy is the same way that I view feminism. a division of the working class against itself. while the ahistorical patriarchy favours men, feminism favours women. neither function in a way that is beneficial to forcing the conditions necessary for a communist revolution.

I think that the leftists who are attempting to perpetuate this "split" are actually attempting to resimplify it. my personal belief is that this split was introduced by capitalists in order to stagnate the rate of revolution. as such, since it deals with some prehistoical male/female differnces, it cannot be beneficial to communism to indoctrinate them into its folds. it is too extreme and too much in contradiction with basic tendencies that define the sexes AND their relations. this seems to me to be TOO PERFECT of a subject for the leftisits to bicker about. there really is no way to settle the matter. we all end up calling each other "right wingers", "capitalists" and so on based upon THEIR trap to stagnate the revolution.

whether we, as communists want to continue to fight over this OR LEAVE IT ALONE until AFTER THE REVOLUTION is up to us. the way see it there can never be a revolution if we are caught, forever, in this neverending debate. just as this debate was intended to do to us, to our movement, to the revolution.

[vox]

while the ahistorical patriarchy favours men, feminism favours women. neither function in a way that is beneficial to forcing the conditions necessary for a communist revolution.

Garbage.

That's rather like saying civil rights for all people favors blacks, simply because black Americans were at the forefront of the civil rights movement. Yet we still see today a statstically contorted picture where a minority is far poorer than the majority. We still see today blacks being denied the right to vote (in the mid-term elections, look at Florida and Tennessee).

Simply because the patriarchy lacks the foundation of histicity, that does NOT mean that the values can't be incorporated into capitalism, and that only benefits the bosses.

As my earlier example showed, however, women are faced with a much harder task when it comes to day to day living. They are harrassed, grabbed, raped and beaten in ways that men are not. There's even a disparity when it comes to the criminal justice system.

As for women being "naturally more nurturing," I sy that's crap. Maggie Thatcher was, indeed, a woman, and so was Janet Reno. Were these "nurturing" women? Of course not. You're succumbing to the temptation to extablish an apriori human nature, which is anathema to Marxism, and more than that, a gender nature, but, of course, it only takes ONE example to prove such a thing wrong.

Gender is, indeed, a social construct. I read about a tribe in which boys had sex with men until they reached a certain age. After they reached that age, they were expected to get married. No one considered these men to be homosexual at all. It was simply a social construction that bent Western Gender Rules.

The fantasy of pornogrphy is another case in point. Women are presentd as holes, dumpsters for semen, and they are GLAD to be so. Fifteen ejaculations on a woman's face is erotic in our society, but the truth of the matter is that degrading women is what is truly erotic, and we can see that in the capitalist business that extends such things.

We do not issue catcalls to equals, and that's what I mean here.

The female has been comodified, and, as in the case of Marist alienation, she is separated from he bery being.

You clain you know no privilege, but you have it whether you want in or not.

That, hazard, is the problem.

[Invader Zim]

SenoraChe i live with my mother on my own, she is very feminist infact im amazed she's not in the sufferagets (typo but i dont care) she has explained to me many times what a feminist is.

Someone who believes that the social, economic and political powers should be shared between men and women equily.

Social

That means that women should not have to put up with the whole social intolerance of men thinking that they are better or more intelegent that women, etc.

Economic

That means that currently weomen in the same possision as men in a company are more likley to be paid up to 25% less money than men, qualification, skill and productivity not regarded. This also refers to the fact that the higher you go in a corporation the less chanse there is of a woman being employed there. So you are unlikley to see any female directors of a company. Bacially women should again not have to put up with that bullshit.

Political

Many women in parliment are bullied or treated with little respect by either other MP's or civil servants. There is also a large number of men in parliment and comparitivly few women. This must stop. It also refers to the hierarchy of political partys such as cabenit ministers are very rarley women, and senior party officials are unlikley to be women.

To fight or oppose these injusteces is what it is to be a feminist.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from vox on 6:59 pm on May 20, 2003
You're succumbing to the temptation to extablish an apriori human nature, which is anathema to Marxism, and more than that, a gender nature, but, of course, it only takes ONE example to prove such a thing wrong.



Good post, perhaps apart from this paticular sentance. Scientifically speaking, I would contend that one example that contradicts a general principle does not in any way disprove that principle, especially when discussing human behavioural tendancies.

Laws of nature and empirical science can in theory be disproven by a single exception, but a general principle about human behaviour is never meant to be applicable in such an absolute sense.

Generally, men have testicles, but some men are born without them. That doesn't disprove the fact that men generally have testicles... if that makes any sense...

Anyway, good discussion so far :)

[redstar2000]

It is customary for Marxists to speak of "the working class" as a whole, and for many purposes that is specific enough to be useful.

Nonetheless, it would be foolish to pretend that the working class is not divided in many ways...often if not always based on direct material causes.

Naturally, we communists want the "workers of the world" to unite and overthrow the capitalist system...but that unity only makes sense in the context of just treatment for those workers who have been particulary oppressed and exploited by the capitalist class.

A "unity" that defends the advantages of one section of the working class at the expense of other sections is fake...and also, by the way, useless.

The communist position, it seems to me, recognizes that material differences within the working class must be addressed plainly: those on the bottom will be raised up...in every sense of the phrase. And, by the way, starting now within the revolutionary movement; not just "wait until after the revolution and we'll take care of you then".

It may be argued that such a stance will simply make our job tougher; that certain people will strenuously resist the end of their special status, higher than average rewards, etc.

So be it; sometimes it's better to take longer...and do the job right.

This is one of those times.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:31 am on May 20, 2003)

[Soul Rebel]

AK47- Great post. It is what i have been trying to say from the beginning. You are thinking exactly what i am thinking :)

I would also like to add something to correct a misconception that people keep repeating: Feminists are not trying to punish future men for the mistakes of the past. They are trying to prevent these mistakes from happening- not to punish people. Men are not targets of feminism. Also i will state it for the millionth time- feminists are not putting womyn ahead of anyone. Feminism is a social movement to help both men and womyn, to fight racism, to fight classism, to fight agism, etc. Feminism is the fight against all oppression. If you would take the time to read on feminist theory you would see this. You would see that it is quiet clear that feminists are aiming to help free both men and womyn of gender roles. Gender roles are oppressive to both men and womyn. Both men and womyn have to conform or else they risk being criticized. You basically need to fulfill gender roles in order to succeed, but feminists say it shouldnt be this way. They say that gender roles are damaging, both mentally and physically for men and womyn. Unfortunately many of you dont see this because you tend to believe the stereotypes that exist about feminism.

Also patriarchy does still exist. Example- Families are expected to be headed by males, the presidents have been male, etc. The ideas, expectations, and gender roles that exist in society are due to patriarchy. Patriarcy is what keeps womyn in their position, it is what keeps capitalism going, etc. Feminists are not wrong to say that it is patriarchy that keeps oppressions going. Nor does patriarchy specifically refer just to gender. We have different expectations of gender according to race and class. Just because we dont have kings who come into power due to their father does not mean we no longer have patriarchy. And it is not feminists alone who use this word. Look at any sociological, anthropological, historical, philosophical writings and you will see patriarcy defined like above and acknowledged as still existing. So if you are going to say that the meaning of patriarchy is skewed you must blame all human rights activists and social scientists.

And no matter if you like it or not you do have unearned priviledges due to your race, class, and gender. You may not be aware of it or you may deny it, but it is there.

If you want to banish capitalism, you must support the abolishment of all oppressions, including gender oppression. Dont you see that capitalism is only able to continue because of oppression. It is capitalism that keeps these divisions going- because it benefits from them. If you in some way support gender oppression than you are supporting capitalism, as well as racism (which you speak out against).

[Pete]

I just had a nifty revalation, or remebered a past one.

Our langauge is mysogynist in nature, and thus our society is. Look at 1984: the langauge can control how the people think and interact. Words like 'actor' and 'singer' have male connotations and are therefore considered more male oriented. Even the word woman suggests that man is superior. The messed up spelling 'womyn' still has this connotations, and is basically silly...it sounds the same and is only different on paper. (that is just my thoughts on that).

Something else. Where is it?? It is gone.

[Conghaileach]

I think that 'actor' is a neutral word. It's only misogynist when you use it in a context alongside 'actress'. Many people will use actor to refer to both males and females.

Unless of course I've misunderstood what the word means.


I remember growing up, we always used the term fireman. Now though I'm likely to use firefighter. The same with the police. Policeman and policewoman vs. police officer (though I'm prone to simply using 'scum').

(Edited by CiaranB at 10:58 pm on May 21, 2003)

[Pete]

That is exactly what I was getting at (even with the actor thing...langauges are complex) Ciaran :)

At least we are not as bad as french where there are different forms of 'friend' (ami, amie, copin, copine, ect) which really gets sexist. Especially with the 3rd person plural (ils, elles)...

[Conghaileach]

You think that's bad - in Irish, every noun is either masculine or feminine.

For instance, doras (door) is masculine and fuinneog (window) is feminine. Whether they are masculine or feminine affects how they are presented in a sentence. When using the article ('the') feminine words must be aspirated. Lots of shit like that.

Nouns describing males are masculine; nouns describing females are feminine, except for the word cailín (one of the words for 'girl') which is masculine.

[Pete]

My friend's name is Cailan...so close to Cailin ... I remember him telling me that before.

What is one of the females opinion on this arguement?

[Valkyrie]

I just want to point out that the nurture/passivity vs. aggressiveness is neither biologically determined nor a social construct, but rather it's an individualized temperament non-exclusive to either sex/gender. It's a social construct as far as that it can be repressed or encouraged, and can be adapted to the status quo of a given society; and it is biologically determined only in the fact that everyone is born with predominately more of one or the other trait. The difference between a baby that screams and flailes around in it's crib when it wants to get out and one that just quietly whimpers.



(Edited by Paris at 7:43 am on May 22, 2003)