To Those who keep the status quo - opinions on Women

[Valkyrie]

I am just curious as to your position on Women? What do you think their place is in society? Do they have too many rights or not enough rights? Do you think they are the cause of the fall of the nuclear family? So, Let's have it... Don't hold back your opinions please.

[yuriandropov]

the 'nuclear family' was thought up by right wingers in order to keep women out of socialism. capitalists realise that there system of government is designed to keep women down and they realise, because of this, that women would be a potential enemy to capitalism.
lenin was one of (if not THE first) world leader to speak of completly equal rights for women. only in a communist society can this happen.
women have a very important role to play in communism. just ask stalin what they did for him in the great patriotic war!

[SU37]

I think women should equal rights but a house wife's true real place is at home,cooking for there family.Notting wrong with women in military or anything or at jobs.Good thing women are at jobs,thats how I met all the babes.

(Edited by SU37 at 2:03 pm on May 23, 2002)


(Edited by SU37 at 2:12 pm on May 23, 2002)

[Hayduke]

Arent they human being too ?
They deserve the same right as men.
We are both needed to survive to lets show a bit respect to
each other.

[Moskitto]

It's true, you may not liek the soviet union but they were the first country to grant equal rights for men and women.

[yuriandropov]

what does that comment mean? 'you may not like the soviet union', why? why don't you like the soviet union?

[Hayduke]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 2:18 am on May 24, 2002
what does that comment mean? 'you may not like the soviet union', why? why don't you like the soviet union?

He means it towards people that dont like the sovjet union.
Not himself

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 9:18 pm on May 23, 2002
what does that comment mean? 'you may not like the soviet union', why? why don't you like the soviet union?

Geez. Not every commie likes the fucking Soviet Union. Can you just dismiss that, or are you going to put on a little hissy fit every time someone says something bad about the USSR?

[Zippy]

Quote: from SU37 on 6:58 pm on May 23, 2002
Good thing women are at jobs,thats how I met all the babes.
Good thing your in a job, a man like you could change the world if he had some time on his hands.

Zippy.

[yuriandropov]

ok then michael, WHY don't you like the soviet union? do you think you could do a better job? after all, you do know EVERYTHING about communism at such a young age and you are american too, which certainly means you could do it better. or could it just be that your incredibly arrogant in your thinking. oh no! an arrogant american, that a first!
the truth is, at least we had the guts to revolt. how come you haven't revolted? and if communism is internationalist, why aren't you fighting with the nepalese gurillas? or the FARC? or peru's shining path? why don't you go and show these comrades how to implement communism if you know so much?
the reason is you love your USA lifestyle. where you can just critisise everything about politics without ever ACTUALLY doing anything about it. it is easy for you to sit there and dismiss the USSR. you have no idea how hard it is to implement a completely new system of government.
the USSR was the first socialist state. we didn't have the ability of hindsight like you do. tell me then general secratary de panama, what would you do with your socialist state? how would you implement it? i can't wait for this responce.

[Zippy]

Now i'm no expert on the USSR, and i'm no expert on politics and communism at all, but i do think Stalin did a damn good job of killing people.

Zippy.

[yuriandropov]

come on michael, i know you are on-line. why are you not responding? i want to how what chairman de panama is going to implement communism? and why he denounces the soviet union?

[Moskitto]

He means it towards people that dont like the sovjet union.
Not himself


I might mean it to myself, I don't know though. I'm under so much stress at the moment because I've got a friend who keeps sending me emails about stuff I don't actually care about, i've got exams, and there's these girls trying to make me think i've got a secret admirer, at the moment, I don't even know what I care about any more.

Really, you do not want to be me right now. Please help me, I have to find a way of finding out the truth but everytime I think of something I analyse it too much and I decide it isn't a good idea.

[Valkyrie]

Point proven. See how unimportant women are thought of in society and how fast this post turned into one about the Soviet Union?

[PaulDavidHewson]

Yuri, you cannot deny that the USA is the land of golden oppertunities, where else can you win 100 million dollars just by entering in the lottery?

USSR = socialisme? My freakin arse it is!
USSR = the land of slavery and oppresion, the land of hunger, the land where pretentious rulers grant zillions of dollars to the space program when the people are staving and underpaid/not paid. The land where zillions of dollars go to the military when the country lies in shambles. The country where people can't express their negative feelings about the state. The land where the elite rule under false pretends. The land of the Gulags.
The land where your house was bugged by the goverment. The land where children where supported to turn in their parents if they were negative about the state. The land of imperialisme(satelite states).
the land of communes, which didn't work and the result was mass hunger. The land many people tried to flee from because all of this oppresion. The land where propoganda was turned into an art form.
(yes some of these things go for some capitalists and all so called "communist" nations as well, not denying that, but it is besides the point right now)

Yuri, There is at least ONE thing I want to know:
DO YOU BELIEVE IN CONTRUCTIVE CRITICISME??


There are people working in surveilance radio stations in the most northern regions of Russia(islands) today who can't leave their sation because no one wants the job and they have been working there for 30 years or more.
They have got kids and all running around there now, but they just can't leave. Once or twice a year a plane comes by and air drops rations so they can survive for another year. They haven't been paid in years. This is not the fault of todays goverment, but it's still a legacy of the imfamous Stalinist regimes of the past.

Did you see the blockbuster movie "Enemy at the gates" by any chance?
Doesn't it seem odd to you that you get shot by your own people if you flee from battle when faced with impossible odds?
Don't you agree that a tactical retreat would be better?
What kind of letter would their families get, something like:
Boris was shot by his own comrades for not suiciding when asked to do so.

[yuriandropov]

nice too know your opinion on the red army was based on a western film. but anyway, if you retreat you should be shot! that is cowardly! stalin always said 'in the soviet army, it takes more courage to retreat than to advance'. why was the soviet infantry the best in the world? because of rules like this!
all the points you have listed were all in relation to stalins times. 1922-1953. we did survive for 40 years after this with no stalin!
the land of slavery and oppression. for who, in stalins time it was for people who were criminals. if you broke the law, rather than go to one of these western holiday camp 'prisons', you served the people. anyway, the gulags died with stalin.
the land of hunger? the soviet constitution reads 'he who shall not work, shall not eat'. if you worked in the USSR, there was no reason to be hungry. i do not know of one person who was hungry in the 70's or early 80's before peristroika.
the people are underpaid? the country in shambles? you are confusing 70's russia with todays. todays russia is in shambles, and todays russians re underpaid. not in soviet days. you seem to be reffering to everything in soviet history apart from '53-'91. next you will blame ivan the terrible on the communists!
the people could express there negative feelings about the state. the only people who were silenced were foreign 'dissidents'. read the quote by yuri andropov in my other thread. foreign 'dissidents' made comparisons with USA standard of living when the two were in-comparable. USA was industrialised when USSR wasn't even formed! they were maipulative people who only expressed hate towards the USSR for financial reasons (the west was paying them).
the land where your house was bugged? in 1989, only 500 soviet houses were bugged. i would suggest roughly about the same number of houses bugged as the USA.
children imprisoning there parents? only happened in stalins days and harldy ever then.
land of communes? what are you talking about? there were no 'communes' in USSR. you are thinking of china. there was collectivisation in USSR (which was needed, but that is a different story). and only in stalins times anyway.
land of sattelite states? some would call it internationalism. anyway, you know USA has sattelite states and so did england and france when they were super powers.
do i believe in constructive critisism? yes. but what you have given me is western propaganda about the stalinist regime in USSR in the 30's and 40's. what about after that? why isn't the USSR the land of free education, of free health care, of free housing, of no hereditary privalegs which in turn means everyone is born equally. what about these things? have you ever been to USSR? do you know anyone from USSR? where have you got your information about USSR? from western sources by any chance? learn about the place from real sources before you jump to your accusations.
i don't know if your a capitalist or not, but the comment about USA being land of oppurtnity is non-sense. yes there are oppurtunities for hard workers there, but only for very few. what you have done is give me the best of USA and worst of USSR. you didn't say the USA was the land of homelessness, the land where students shoot each other, the land where a movie star earns more in one film than a skilled worker would all his life, the land where the only thing the working class has got to live for is drugs. that is constructive critisism, yes?
your comparisons must be fair and they are not!


(Edited by yuriandropov at 9:39 am on May 26, 2002)

[Capitalist Fighter]

Yuri you can't say that the USSR from 1953 on wards was great and simply disgard the oppressive era of Lenin and Stalin. That is like saying that the U.S. is the best from its inception till 1917. Everything after that doens't count. The USSR was one of the most oppressive systems ever. Millions upon millions died from its policies. It fell in 1991 due to popular discontent and mass demonstrations, this in itself shows that the people unlike your claims, were in fact not for the Soviet Union. Add this to the fact that the only reason that the communists attained power was because a minority group usurped power and then dissolved the National Assembly and its elections because the results were not favourable to the communists further buttresses the fact that the USSR was a system that ws heralded by a few onto the rest.

[yuriandropov]

capitalist fighter, you are very ignorant about the USSR like nearly everyone on this board.
i am not going to go into all the reasons but i will say this. hardly anyone wanted the USSR to collapse. 78% voted in march 1991 to keep it. everyone, including me, was in favour of opposing the august 1991 coup because it wanted to return us to the 50's. just because people didn't want a new stalin, doesn't mean they wanted an end of the soviet union. a tiny minority have befited from the collapse of USSR and you only have to look at the figures on my post 'more proof of russias revolutionary spitit' to see many people would like to see a new USSR. they DON'T want to see a new stalin though. there is a massive difference. the soviet union collapsed because of people like yeltsin who got greedy for power. he played on peoples weakness's and got into power and ever since then, russia has been in limbo.
if i can't rule out the stallinist oppression of the 30's and 40's then does that mean you can't rule out the slave trade in america? was that not oppressive? yes it was, but america has moved on since then, just like USSR moved on from stalinism.
i'm not saying USSR was great or disregarding the era before 1953, but you and pdh are only focusing on that era. if people only focused on germany from 1933-1945, people would have a bad view of germany, yes? or if they focused on USA in slave times.
you can't dismiss USSR just as i can't dissmiss USA, cause i have never lived there. and it would be arrogant of me to think i knew what american people thought just by reading a newspaper or watching TV. just as it is arrogant of you to do the same thing with USSR.

[Zippy]

Arent women lovely? Oh sorry, my mistake; intellects at battle. I'll leave you to it.

Zippy.

[Hayduke]

The USSR was a great thing, massive productions, cities raised up from nowere.

If they only tought bout their people, like communism was meant to be it would have been great, but they didnt.

[PaulDavidHewson]

The reason "Communisme"(Stalinisme) survived for that long in the CCCP is the same reason why it will survive in Cuba for a longer period of time after Castro finally dies.
Raul will rule and after that maybe some friend called José or something.

[glamgirl610]

ok i thought this was supposed to be about women??? i guess ppl would rather fight about counties and communism and all the other "isms" but um i think women should have equal rights and oppurtunities and i think that women basically do. so yeah. although theres a part of me that thinks like oh women should stay home, women cant be doctors or firemen, or police, or athletes. lol i kno thats definitely NOT TRUE!! so dont get mad at me, i'm not a sexist or ne thing...its just that ever since i was really little thats wat it seemed like. but i think now women can do watever they want.

[new democracy]

i support women rights. but i am against feminism because feminism say that man profit from the inquality in society and say that man is the enemy of the women and women have different intrests than the intrests of the man while working man and women should fight together against capitalism.

[queen of diamonds]

I'm all for equal opportunities for women and all - I should be, I am one - but I think it's important to realise that there is a difference between women and men. It's when the feminists begin jumping up and down about women's sport not being given the same coverage as men, 'cause the level women's sport is played at just isn't as good. That's a physical thing, & that can't be changed. I mean, how many men take maternity (or paternity) leave? It's important to realise they're difference, which so many feminists don't, which is why people are getting annoyed at them.

As for the USSR debate, Yuri, I understand that you're sick of propaganda - believe me, I am too, but the fact still remains that Stalin did, among other things, basically starve his peasants to stimulate the economy. Did he think he was doing the right thing? I don't know. But the USSR's system of government certainly left a lot to be desired.

[RedCeltic]

glamgirl610 said:

ok i thought this was supposed to be about women??? i guess ppl would rather fight about counties and communism and all the other "isms"

The major change of industrialization to western culture is probably the greatest influence on how men interact with women within a modern capitalistic system. Men are paid more and subject to more promotions; if the boss is male, and when the boss is female, usually more females become promoted. Of coarse there are exceptions, and the same argument can be use to explain the effects of capitalism on minorities.

Capitalism breeds inequality of the sexes by it's very nature.

glamgirl610 said:

but um i think women should have equal rights and oppurtunities and i think that women basically do.

This is a false statement.

Women constitute half the world's population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, receive one-tenth of the world's income and own less than one-hundredth of the world's property.
United Nations report


glamgirl610 said:

so yeah. although theres a part of me that thinks like oh women should stay home, women cant be doctors or firemen, or police, or athletes. lol i kno thats definitely NOT TRUE!! so dont get mad at me, i'm not a sexist or ne thing...its just that ever since i was really little thats wat it seemed like. but i think now women can do watever they want.


This is simply conditioned thinking. The whole point of the "Bring your daughter to work" day is to dispel this kind of attitude in females. There have always been women in the workplace within families that couldn't afford to survive on a single income. Because I come from a long line of poor people.... there has never been a female in my family that didn't have a job.

Back in Scotland where my dad's mother is from, the women worked in Jute mills and in sweat shops as weavers... from as early as six. Meanwhile, there was no work for the men... they where able to pay women and children less, so that's who where employed, while men usually became depressed at not being useful providers of their families, became heavy drinkers, and would often run away. ( such in both as both my great grandfathers.)

In todays economy, it's impossible to think of a family where the woman doesn't work. At least for us of the working class. It's rare for a lower income working class family to be able to survive here in Southern New York on anything less than the saleries of two full time jobs.

Also, don't think that equal employment somehow means an equal role in the household, nor somehow makes domestic violence not exist.








(Edited by RedCeltic at 7:58 am on Aug. 17, 2002)

[vox]

"At least for us of the working class. It's rare for a lower income working class family to be able to survive here in Southern New York on anything less than the saleries of two full time jobs."

This is quite true, and, in a certain sense, quite funny, for the necessity of a two-worker household came as a direct result of the stagnant wages the US worker experienced through the Eighties and most of the Nineties (and the slight bump in the late Nineties didn't begin to cover the lost ground). These are the same years of conservative economic policy, yet, at the same time, the lousy right-wingers were chastising "feminism" for forcing women out of the home and into the workforce, when it was economics, not any sort of right-wing defined "feminism" that caused this change. Remember the flap about Hillary Clinton and the staying home to bake cookies remark? Neither of the two money parties had the backbone to name the real culprit: stagnant wages.

vox

[canikickit]

a woman's place is in the home. ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, what a stupid thread