Gender Aristocracy?

[jacobin1949]

As a supplement to MIM's Labor aristocracy the Monkey-Maoists have developed the concept of "gender aristocracy".

Gender line (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/gender-line/)


Stand-in gender line
(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)
MSH is rethinking the Maoist gender line. MIM, before its freak-show degeneration, blazed many trails. IRTR, one of our predecessor organizations, upheld MIM’s line on various gender related topics as best as it could understand. However, MIM never really put forward a comprehensive framework for understanding gender. MIM Theory magazine and MIM’s web page contained disparate and provocative writings on gender. Flawed as they were, MIM’s writings on gender were far superior to the boilerplate liberalism of the fakes. MIM’s writings contained various contradictory and muddled positions on gender issues.
MSH is producing a stand-in gender line until we can develop a consistent scientific framework for gender:
1. The contradiction between adult first-world males and females is non-antagonistic (within the same nation). Both are part of a global gender aristocracy.
2. First worlders as a whole, male and female, accrue privileges by jointly oppressing the third world.
3. First worlders, including first-world females, are enemies of the third world generally, including third-world females. The myth of a “universal sisterhood” between first and third-world females is a reactionary tool to divide national liberation movements.
4. Alternative gender language promulgates the myth that adult first-world females are significantly oppressed such that they can be aligned with the oppressed nations against imperialism.
5. It is wrong to characterize all sexual relationships in stark terms such as “rape,” terms with universally negative connotations. It is wrong for various reasons, including:
Firstly, such a characterization of all sexual relations as “rape” is trivial and virtually meaningless. It is overly reductionist. Such a characterization stretches the meaning of the term “rape” as to strip it of any explanatory power. It obliterates important distinctions like why cases of sex tourism are qualitatively different than ordinary encounters between first-world adults.
Secondly, calling all sex “rape” because there is always a power difference between sexual partners in the first world is analogous to the Trotskyist claim that the first-world labor aristocracy is exploited just because there is a difference in power between the first-world labor aristocracy and first-world capitalists.
Thirdly, calling all sex “rape” obscures the fact that adult first-world females benefit overall from their relationships, including their personal relationships, with adult first-world males.
Fourthly, the claim that “all sex is rape” panders to the gender aristocracy and bourgeois fake-feminism.
6. Gender is not biological; it is a social construct.
7. It is important to oppose bourgeois fake-feminism, especially crypto-Trotskyism in gender forms, especially since Amerikkka, the Great Satan, is waging a crusade against the Islamic world.
8. Questions about lifestyle are generally sub-reformist. MSH has no line on how revolutionaries should specifically conduct their personal relationships and sexual lives other than the line that revolutionaries should evaluate their lifestyles through the lenses of security and image. MSH’s line is that security and image are the main criteria for assessing why one lifestyle is better than another for revolutionaries in the first world. Obviously, certain lifestyle choices, in terms of security and image, are incompatible with serious revolutionary work. Individual cells will have a better idea about where to set the bar on these issues in their own contexts.
We stress that MIM’s gender line was better than the boilerplate liberalism of the fakes. However, MSH is making a self criticism for not speaking up against the incorrect aspects of their gender line earlier. Many people knew the weakness of MIM’s gender line for a long time but bit their tongues on some of these issues in order to defend MIM against the fakes, who constantly and in an unprincipled way used it as a diversionary issue against the correct Maoist line on the global class structure. People should not bite their tongues. Our movement is moving forward.
Also check out Policy on alternative gender spellings (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/policy-on-alternative-gender-spellings/).

[jacobin1949]

Policy on alternative gender spellings (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/policy-on-alternative-gender-spellings/)

November 20, 2007


On alternative gender spellings
(monkeysmashesheave.wordpress.com)
Monkey Smashes Heaven is encouraging, but not requiring, writers to drop alternative spellings relating explicitly to gender such as “womyn,” “persyn,” “wimmin,” “bio-wimmin,” etc. The use of such spellings by Maoists, while honorable, is misguided. Language conventions are not a dividing line issue (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/criteria-for-fraternal-organizations/) for Maoists.
Firstly, these feminist spellings have largely been taken over by the bourgeois-feminist movement in Amerikkka. By using them, we appear to tail bourgeois feminism. Bourgeois feminism and other imperialist ideologies advocate for more privilege and power for first world populations. Maoism advocates for less privilege and power for first world females and males.
Secondly, the original purpose for the alternative gender spellings was agitational. Who exactly is supposed to be agitated by these alternative spellings? The meanings of these spellings are lost on most third worlders. And, these alternative spellings in the first world create the impression that first world females are oppressed in significant ways such that they are allies of the third world. Such spellings create the impression that “we use these alternative spellings to underscore your oppression.” This is the case even if we include fine print in our theory articles that clarifies our position on the gender aristocracy. Whatever our intent, such rhetoric promulgates the dangerous myth of the “universal sisterhood” of third and first world females. The myth of the “universal sisterhood” of all females is based on bourgeois reactionary essentialist views of gender. First world females are enemies of the third world generally, including third world females.

In other words, such spellings agitate for, not against, the gender aristocracy. Alternative gender spellings pander to the first world female gender aristocracy. This creates confusion amongst our readers. Confusion allows Trotskyism to infiltrate our movement under the cover of gender issues. It is important to oppose gender-crypto-Trotskyism, especially since U$ imperialism is waging a crusade against the Islamic world.
Thirdly, we need to be better communicators. Our writings should be clear and understandable, especially for people in the third world whose first language may not be English. Alternative spellings such as “womyn,” “persyn, “wimmin,” “bio-wimmin,” are confusing. We erred and created an unnecessary barrier between ourselves and those who need our writings most.
Fourthly, we encourage the retention of alternative spellings that are not explicitly related to gender such as “Amerikkka,” “U$,” because these are clear and well understood.
The main reason for our decision to abandon these alternative gender spellings is that their political message is ambiguous at best, pseudo-feminist at worst. Clarity of political line takes precedence over agitation. Also, we don’t want to confuse the masses, especially people whose native language is not English. Maoists need to become better communicators to the oppressed and exploited world majority. We need to be more skilled at projecting our voice to the international proletariat.
P.S. Read a Maoist review of Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/book-review-female-chauvinist-pigs-women-and-the-rise-of-raunch-culture/).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It is a reactionary bourgeois idea to view the world in terms of region/nationality as these idiots do.

Splitting the proletariat into national/ethnic/regional divisions is a sign of the bankrupt ideology which these people uphold.

[rouchambeau]

It is a reactionary bourgeois idea to view the world in terms of region/nationality as these idiots do.

Splitting the proletariat into national/ethnic/regional divisions is a sign of the bankrupt ideology which these people uphold.
It's actually the epitome of liberalism to view the world in a way that papers-over the differences and antagonisms between people (be it in terms of sex, race, nationality, etc). There are systems of power that benefit the first-world at the expense of the third-world. These systems that privilege some and harm others need to be exposed.

These Maoists are not splitting up people according to region; there already is one between the first-world and the third-world. Until we all realize that, we're going to have a very difficult time uniting people for change.

[Guest1]

These Maoists are not splitting up people according to region; there already is one between the first-world and the third-world. Until we all realize that, we're going to have a very difficult time uniting people for change.
I don't know which is dumber, the monkey-maoist lines above, or your attempt to defend it.