Is Feminism Bourgeois?

[Awful Reality]

I'm going to preface this by saying that I don't agree with everything I say here, I rather just find it to be interesting.

I recently read an article in the Monthly The Atlantic (written most likely by a Marxist), which had a rather interesting point. It examined the downfalls of feminism from a marxist standpoint.

One of the most interesting things it says is that feminism as it exists today is bourgeois. It claims that one of the main focuses of feminism is wage inequality by gender- and while this is a problem, all it has done is focused people on wage inequality by gender, rather than wage inequality by class, and in that sense it maintains wage inequality by gender. The first thought I had was that of fascism- not that feminism is fascism- but in that it could be an ideology supported by the bourgeoisie to direct attention from class struggle and rather towards something else. In this case, gender struggle, in that case, "race struggle."

Views?

Disclaimer: Again, I do not necessarily believe this, rather think it is interesting.

[RGacky3]

No its not, thats rediculous, that would mean that any idea that is not about class struggle is bourgeois, feminism is a different subject.

Also no idea is bourgeois or proletariat, those are names to descrime certain classes, ideas stand for themselves, you can't classify ideas into a class, (perhaps with the exception of ideas that deal directly with class issues.)

I think people saying 'such and such idea is bourgeois' is kind of dangerous and almost like a communist deux ex machina, because rather than actually deal with the subject or the idea, they just write it off as bourgeois even though doing that makes no sense. Like the concept of liberty, its not bourgeois, its universal, it does'nt matter who came up with it, it applies universally, it has nothing to do with class in it self. Or Feminism, feminism is about womans rights, and equality, its a gender issue not a class issue, so writing it off as bourgeois makes no sense.

[Baconator]

Why are you two ( Gacky and Awful) restricted?

[Awful Reality]

No its not, thats rediculous, that would mean that any idea that is not about class struggle is bourgeois, feminism is a different subject.
No no, the idea here is that it distracts from class struggle and leads people to abandon class struggle in hopes of gender struggle, which is a part of class struggle.

[Dr Mindbender]

saying feminism is beourgiose is like saying black power is beourgiose.

Made of fail.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Most feminist activists I've met were self-identified non-reformist socialists. I'm skeptical of this author's claims.

[Bud Struggle]

No no, the idea here is that it distracts from class struggle and leads people to abandon class struggle in hopes of gender struggle, which is a part of class struggle.

Huh? :rolleyes:

[Baconator]

Is Feminism bourgeois?

http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs4/300W/i/2004/208/3/d/communist_girl.jpg

Nope! :D

[Bud Struggle]

The "Babe theory of Revolution." http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/03/more_on_the_bab.html

[Peacekeeper]

I'm going to preface this by saying that I don't agree with everything I say here, I rather just find it to be interesting.

I recently read an article in the Monthly The Atlantic (written most likely by a Marxist), which had a rather interesting point. It examined the downfalls of feminism from a marxist standpoint.

One of the most interesting things it says is that feminism as it exists today is bourgeois. It claims that one of the main focuses of feminism is wage inequality by gender- and while this is a problem, all it has done is focused people on wage inequality by gender, rather than wage inequality by class, and in that sense it maintains wage inequality by gender. The first thought I had was that of fascism- not that feminism is fascism- but in that it could be an ideology supported by the bourgeoisie to direct attention from class struggle and rather towards something else. In this case, gender struggle, in that case, "race struggle."

Views?

Disclaimer: Again, I do not necessarily believe this, rather think it is interesting.

Feminism is not about wage-equality. It is about complete economic and social equality. Naturally, to achieve these goals, a socialist revolution led by the working class must take place, so how in the world is feminism bourgeois?

[RGacky3]

There are capitalist feminists and socialist feminists, the same as there are capitalist black power people and socialist ones. Its not bourgeois or Proletariat, its different. IDEAS ARE NOT BOURGEOIS OR PROLETARIAT! PEOPLE ARE.


No no, the idea here is that it distracts from class struggle and leads people to abandon class struggle in hopes of gender struggle, which is a part of class struggle.

People who partake in class struggle will partake in class struggle whether or not they are involved with gender struggle and vise versa.

Heres my thoughts on feminism, I agree that women are equal to men, and should be payed the same for work, however, there are somethings I think are pointless.

i.e. "Women are viewed as sex objects."

Yeah, by men, why does a womans value have to be based on what a man thinks of her? Also women look at men as sex objects as well, the difference? Men don't care.

"Women are called sluts when they sleep around, men are called players."

Again, women are offended at the word sluts, men take being a player as a complement, if oyu switch the words, men would take sluts as a complement and women would take player as an insult, its all about how women view themselves.

Also the idea that women should advance in the work place and be independant is great, but there are a lot of women that are happy, and want, traditional roles, they want to be the stay at home wife, and that should be respected as well.

"Men do all the killing men do all the wars men are bad."

There have also been many many altruistic men in the past, as well as bad oppressive women, it just so happens that for most of history including today men have more power, thus they are going to abuse it more.

[Peacekeeper]

There are capitalist black power people and socialist ones.


There are capitalist black power people and socialist ones.



There are capitalist black power people and socialist ones.


...

Racism is an ideology that is diametrically opposed to socialism.

There are no socialist black power people.

That's like saying a Stormfronter can be a socialist.

[Kropotesta]

There's many different forms of feminism, for example reformist liberal feminism to marxist feminism.

[bcbm]

Feminism is not a single ideology, it is a broad term that describes a wide-range of ideologies. There are socialist (Marxist, Anarchist) feminisms, and there are liberal (bourgeois) feminisms. While the latter focuses on achieving equal standing within a capitalist framework, the former is about examining the conditions specific to women within capitalist society as this is an area typically neglected by socialist thinkers.


Racism is an ideology that is diametrically opposed to socialism.

There are no socialist black power people.

How is black power racism?

[Awful Reality]

Perhaps if you took the time to look into the history of the black power movement, you'd quickly find that the Black Power movement is and was quite socialist.

[Module]

i.e. "Women are viewed as sex objects."

Yeah, by men, why does a womans value have to be based on what a man thinks of her?
That's the point. Women as a gender are objectified, their worth becomes decided on how they make men feel.

Also women look at men as sex objects as well, the difference? Men don't care.
No, the difference is that men have the privilege of a sense of independent individual worth on a level which is denied to women, through our patriarchal culture, which makes women the sexual objects for men and not the other way around. Women are not just seen as objects to be used by men, from men's perspective, but also their own.


"Women are called sluts when they sleep around, men are called players."

Again, women are offended at the word sluts, men take being a player as a complement, if oyu switch the words, men would take sluts as a complement and women would take player as an insult, its all about how women view themselves.
It's not just about 'how women view themselves', it's how they are viewed, and how they are taught to view themselves. They don't just all happen to view themselves a certain way for no reason.
Our culture dictates that sexual freedom for men is acceptable, but sexual freedom for women is unacceptable. Women are expected to be faithful to men, men are allowed to sleep around.


Also the idea that women should advance in the work place and be independant is great, but there are a lot of women that are happy, and want, traditional roles, they want to be the stay at home wife, and that should be respected as well.
Well, shit, I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to be dole bludgers, or drug dealers, I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to own a business and exploit workers, too;

No doubt, it is not just men who perpetuate these expectations, these social norms of the good woman - the housewife, the mother, but society as a whole. We live in a patriarchal society. It's not simply 'men vs. women', where somehow "But some women like patriarchy" becomes some genuine argument against feminism and gender equality.

Is there something wrong with a woman wanting to quit working, and spending her days cleaning her house, preparing food, looking after her children; letting go of a career, of independence, of doing something intellectually satisfying, for the sake of her husband? Of course there is.


"Men do all the killing men do all the wars men are bad."

There have also been many many altruistic men in the past, as well as bad oppressive women, it just so happens that for most of history including today men have more power, thus they are going to abuse it more.

That has nothing to do with feminism.

[RGacky3]

Perhaps if you took the time to look into the history of the black power movement, you'd quickly find that the Black Power movement is and was quite socialist.

Yeah it was, oh I should say a large part of it was, but that does'nt mean it always is, or always has to be, and there were many anti-racist, balck power people that were not socialist.


their worth becomes decided on how they make men feel.

Who sets their worth? Ultimately its up to the person. They decide how their worth is decided, not men, they arn't bein bought or sold, its self worth.


which makes women the sexual objects for men and not the other way around. Women are not just seen as objects to be used by men, from men's perspective, but also their own.


You cannot change the way men look at women and women look at men, its nature, women are seen as sex objects by men, and them having worth independant from men is their own perspective, some men put their worth solely on how much money they man, some men put their worth on if they can or cannot attract women.


It's not just about 'how women view themselves', it's how they are viewed, and how they are taught to view themselves. They don't just all happen to view themselves a certain way for no reason.
Our culture dictates that sexual freedom for men is acceptable, but sexual freedom for women is unacceptable. Women are expected to be faithful to men, men are allowed to sleep around.


Women are either viewed by men or women, our culture is made up of both women and men, and culturally, at least in the United States its becoming more and more acceptable to sleep around.

Sexual freedom for owmen is unacceptable by who? Not the law, by men? Some perhaps, by other Women? Probably, By the Women herself? Maybe. But switch it around, its all perspective, and you can't change anyone elses perspective except from your own, and why would you want too?

You cant just say, women are expected to to be something, because then you ask expected by who? Men and other women, women make up half the population.


Well, shit, I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to be dole bludgers, or drug dealers, I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to own a business and exploit workers, too;

No doubt, it is not just men who perpetuate these expectations, these social norms of the good woman - the housewife, the mother, but society as a whole. We live in a patriarchal society. It's not simply 'men vs. women', where somehow "But some women like patriarchy" becomes some genuine argument against feminism and gender equality.

Is there something wrong with a woman wanting to quit working, and spending her days cleaning her house, preparing food, looking after her children; letting go of a career, of independence, of doing something intellectually satisfying, for the sake of her husband? Of course there is.


Its not just Social norms, men and women are biologically different, women have a maternal instinct, women think differently than men, its been proven over and over again.

Again you cana say a women wanting to spend her days doing things for the sake of her children is wrong, why is'nt it wrong for a man to work more than he would normally have to and pay everything for the sake of his wife and children? It goes both ways. The fact is there is NOTHING wrong with that, many women want that, many men want that, much of it is biological, and could it possibally be that they love each other?

BTW, its WAY differnt then exploiting workers, and oppression, because NO ONE wants to be oppressed, no one wants to be enslaved, many many women want to get married and live in a traditionaly household, and are happy doing it.

[black magick hustla]

saying feminism is beourgiose is like saying black power is beourgiose.

Made of fail.

i dont know if they are bourgeois because that word gets thrown around so much nowodays. however, identity politics have nothing to do with communist politics.

[Module]

Who sets their worth? Ultimately its up to the person. They decide how their worth is decided, not men, they arn't bein bought or sold, its self worth.
That's an incredibly naive statement to make, and I doubt you really believe that.
Sure, self worth is great. It's human beings, funnily enough, are social animals, we live in societies, communities, and our social worth is far more important to our lives than 'self worth' is.
Are you going to tell a black person getting the shit kicked out of them by a white gang 'It's all about self worth!'?
I hope you know that while what you've said sounds really sweet, it just so happens to have zero basis in the real world.


You cannot change the way men look at women and women look at men, its nature, women are seen as sex objects by men, and them having worth independant from men is their own perspective, some men put their worth solely on how much money they man, some men put their worth on if they can or cannot attract women.
Well, actually you can change the way men look at women. It's been done before and I dare say if we keep trying it'll keep changing.
Women have rights now - we can work any job we want, we can (in some places) have abortions, we're no longer legally seen as the property of men. Those changes have come from social change. You know, something which always happens, in any society.
You putting it down to 'nature' is a cop out - and just happens to have next to no scientific basis. My male friends don't see me as a sex object, they see me as an individual. Is that unnatural of them, do you think?
Both women and men make up society. Patriarchy doesn't just effect men, who think they're better than women and so therefore it's simply the woman's fault if she complies with that view. Society as a whole perpetuates sexism. Your position on this is ridiculous!!


Women are either viewed by men or women, our culture is made up of both women and men, and culturally, at least in the United States its becoming more and more acceptable to sleep around.
Because the traditional view of women being the sexual property of men has been challenged. No doubt there were people like you back then who claimed that men wanting women to be completely faithful to them was simply human nature; and of course they had as little evidence to suggest that as you do.


Sexual freedom for women is unacceptable by who? Not the law, by men? Some perhaps, by other Women? Probably, By the Women herself? Maybe. But switch it around, its all perspective, and you can't change anyone elses perspective except from your own, and why would you want too?
Uh, maybe because other people's perspective of you is incredibly important to your life? You seem to think that people are islands, and their lives are entirely based on their own perspective of themselves - their 'self worth'. Tell me - are you a straight white male whose never experienced an ounce of social discrimination in your life? Because you sure as hell sound like it.
Women are payed less, they have less opportunities, they suffer rape, physical abuse, they have less sexual freedom, they have less financial freedom, they even have less intellectual freedom - and are you going to tell me that's just because of their own perspectives of themselves?
You can change other people's perspectives. It happens all the time. As I mentioned earlier; social change.
Women are allowed to vote now because they're judgement is no longer seen as being based on emotion. Black people are no longer slaves in America because they are no longer seen as undeserving of equal individual rights. Gay people are no longer burned at the stake in England because their sexuality is no longer seen as something worthy of execution.
All of these are examples of changes of perspective. Perspectives that, quite obviously, one would want to change.
To answer your last question, I want people's perspectives on women to change because I don't like oppression - most people don't. I like equal opportunity for individuals. I want people to have freedom to be who they are, to do what they want, to say what they want.
Don't you?


You cant just say, women are expected to to be something, because then you ask expected by who? Men and other women, women make up half the population.
Yes, societal expectations. Gender roles.


Its not just Social norms, men and women are biologically different, women have a maternal instinct, women think differently than men, its been proven over and over again.
Women have a maternal instinct? That's news to me - I hate babies.
But go on - show me the proof.
Women thinking differently from men, of which there is slim pure biological evidence to suggest that to any meaningful extent, is no justification for their social oppression.


Again you can say a women wanting to spend her days doing things for the sake of her children is wrong, why is'nt it wrong for a man to work more than he would normally have to and pay everything for the sake of his wife and children?
It goes both ways. The fact is there is NOTHING wrong with that, many women want that, many men want that, much of it is biological, and could it possibally be that they love each other?
Traditional gender roles are 'wrong' in a a lot of ways - but there is very little 'biological' about it.
You're pulling that out of your arse.
And love does not create housewives - that really is bullshit.


BTW, its WAY differnt then exploiting workers, and oppression, because NO ONE wants to be oppressed, no one wants to be enslaved, many many women want to get married and live in a traditionaly household, and are happy doing it.
I'm sure there are a lot of women who don't consider it oppression - as I said, these are societal expectations. But likewise, there are a lot of workers who don't think they're being oppressed by the capitalist system. If all workers were class conscious I imagine things would look a little different.
Whilst many women don't see being a housewife as a necessarily sexist role, I'd say that the vast majority of women know what sexism is, have consciously encountered it in other more overt forms, and consciously oppose it.

Fuck am I glad you're restricted.

[RGacky3]

Are you going to tell a black person getting the shit kicked out of them by a white gang 'It's all about self worth!'?
I hope you know that while what you've said sounds really sweet, it just so happens to have zero basis in the real world.


Are women getting the shit kicked out of them for being women? When your talking about worth, thats something different, worth is an abstract concept that is subjective, not a phisicaly situation, like being beaten, or having a law put up that discriminates against a group. You were talking about 'worth'.


You putting it down to 'nature' is a cop out - and just happens to have next to no scientific basis. My male friends don't see me as a sex object, they see me as an individual. Is that unnatural of them, do you think?

No men and women can be friends, its common, but if a man views you as a sex object, thats natural too, and there is nothing wrong with it, you can't expect him to simply have respect for you just because, you, like a man, must earn it, if a man wants to view women as a sex object, so be it, who cares, its up to you if you want to sleep with him, or have contact with him.


Women have rights now - we can work any job we want, we can (in some places) have abortions, we're no longer legally seen as the property of men. Those changes have come from social change. You know, something which always happens, in any society.

Those are changes in concrete laws, not nessesarily attitudes. Also I was refering more on an individual basis.


Both women and men make up society. Patriarchy doesn't just effect men, who think they're better than women and so therefore it's simply the woman's fault if she complies with that view. Society as a whole perpetuates sexism. Your position on this is ridiculous!!


Patriarchy, nowerdays at least, is not legally backed up. Since when do men think their better than women? Most, think of them differently, they don't compare men to women, and why are women judging themselves based on mens standards?

Society as a whole perpetuates sexism? I'm not so sure about that, and to be fair, most men, at least in western countries, have no problem with "sluts," they'll sleep with them, they probably won't marry them, or have a serious relationship with them, but unfortunately, many women base their worth on that, if a man loves them, you can't blaim the man for that.


Because the traditional view of women being the sexual property of men has been challenged. No doubt there were people like you back then who claimed that men wanting women to be completely faithful to them was simply human nature; and of course they had as little evidence to suggest that as you do.


Well, I don't have any evidence perse, but look around, most couples in relationships look down on their mates cheeting :P, be it men or women, they don't like it, and I have a hunch it has something to do with love, and sex being associated with that, that has nothing to do with sexual property, because a woman will brake up with a man that cheats too (at least she should), when you reduce relationships to a pure mechanical formula, of property, master and servant, your taking out the whole point of it, love and companionship.


Uh, maybe because other people's perspective of you is incredibly important to your life? You seem to think that people are islands, and their lives are entirely based on their own perspective of themselves - their 'self worth'. Tell me - are you a straight white male whose never experienced an ounce of social discrimination in your life? Because you sure as hell sound like it.


I'm a straight, white (well half that half hispanic), and I hav'nt suffered much social discrimination, at least no seriously, my family has, but not me personally.

That being said, we are not talking about social discrimination, we are talking about individuals, if a women views her self, or her friends view her as a 'slut' thats not social discrimination like racism, no, its just their judgemental views, which the woman (or man for that matter) can confront them on or not. But also switch it around, when a man sleeps around, probably some women will look at it negatively, but so what? They don't like it.

Its like complaining that people don't like the way you dress, thats not social discrimination.


Women are payed less, they have less opportunities, they suffer rape, physical abuse, they have less sexual freedom, they have less financial freedom, they even have less intellectual freedom - and are you going to tell me that's just because of their own perspectives of themselves?
You can change other people's perspectives. It happens all the time. As I mentioned earlier; social change.

Women are payed less thats true, and I'm against that, if thast true, but I believe that has more to do with the market than discrimination, or a mix of the two, but its probably individual employers that think that women would be worse workers, but like I said, women should get hte same pay for the same work.

They suffer rape too, and thats horrible, but men do as well, also rape is'nt social discrimination, its an individual crime, that again is horrible and discusting, but not social discrimination.

They suffer physical abuse, yes, but so do men, from their spouse, infact at pretty much a equal rate (although mens abuse is mor severe due to their streangth), but again, thats not social discriminaiton, those are individual relationships gone bad, by men that have no respect for women, and vise versa.

They have less financial freedom? They can do with their money, what men can do.

Less intelectual freedom? How so.

These things are generalyl speaking not form social discrimination, and they don't have to do with "worth" which is abstract and subjective and in reality, up to the person.

Social change, changes situations, changes hiarchies and structures, not perspectives, especially not perspectives that have nothing to do with social structures, like if a women is viewed as a slut or not.


Women are allowed to vote now because they're judgement is no longer seen as being based on emotion. Black people are no longer slaves in America because they are no longer seen as undeserving of equal individual rights. Gay people are no longer burned at the stake in England because their sexuality is no longer seen as something worthy of execution.
All of these are examples of changes of perspective. Perspectives that, quite obviously, one would want to change.
To answer your last question, I want people's perspectives on women to change because I don't like oppression - most people don't. I like equal opportunity for individuals. I want people to have freedom to be who they are, to do what they want, to say what they want.
Don't you?


yes, I do, I don't like oppression either, I do want equal opportunity for everyone, and freedom for everyone, men and women, I want women to be able to do what they want, stay single, marry, work, contribute, gain the same responsability as a man, sure, but that does'nt depend of if 'Jack' does'nt respect 'Mary' and just wants to bone her. Mary should be able to do what she wants no matter what Jack thinks of her.

I'll take another example, when gay people look at each other as pure sex objects, are they oppressing each other?

Like I said before, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as a women (at least you should), but also those around you have the freedom to think of you as they please, to view you as they please, as long as they don't infringe on your freedom specifically, thats something we all have to live with.

If Jill wants to sleep around, and her friends think she's a slut, and she thinkgs she's a slut and feels bad about it, whreas jack does the same and his friends give him the high five and he's proud, thats not social-injustice.


Yes, societal expectations. Gender roles.

Which can or cannot be followed, those are loose traditions (not laws), and customs that some choose to follow, others don't. Many women follow their maternal instinct, and they want a family, they wnat to be a wife and a mother, and sure you can judge them if you want, but I don't see why you would, the same way I would'nt judge a woman that does otherwise.


Women have a maternal instinct? That's news to me - I hate babies.
But go on - show me the proof.
Women thinking differently from men, of which there is slim pure biological evidence to suggest that to any meaningful extent, is no justification for their social oppression.

I don't have proof, and I'm not going to look it up, because you as well as I know, asking both men and women, many want to have children, many want to have families, its maternal and paternal, I would'nt put that all on "societal expectations" as much as biology, (i.e. species like to reproduce).

Women thinking differently from men, of coarse is no justification for social oppression, I agree, but women deciding to be married (with the ability to get a divorce when they choose, and generally get the kids and a large chunk of the husbands cash with it), or a woman being viewed a certain way by individuals based on the choices she mans, which happens to men as well a lot, is no social oppression.

Oh, and how come generally speaking women ahve the option of either being indepenant and carrear women, OR, decide to be a stay at home traditional wife, when men socially really only have one option without being looked down apon, they must slave for the system, see it happens both ways, but guess what, its just what people think, its just peoples views, thats different from social oppression.


Traditional gender roles are 'wrong' in a a lot of ways - but there is very little 'biological' about it.
You're pulling that out of your arse.
And love does not create housewives - that really is bullshit.

Well, considering women have the children, men are physically stronger, studies have shown women to have more nurturing and gentil qualities than men, who have more aggressive qualities, its not so much bullshit.

Love does'nt not perse create housewives, but a woman chooseing to become a housewife, because she does'nt want to work, because the husband makes enough for them, thast not slavery, they got married "hopefully" because they love each other, not so the man can enslave the women, also it was a mutaul agreement, nowerdays a woman can stay single her whole life and do fine if she so pleased.


I'm sure there are a lot of women who don't consider it oppression - as I said, these are societal expectations. But likewise, there are a lot of workers who don't think they're being oppressed by the capitalist system. If all workers were class conscious I imagine things would look a little different.
Whilst many women don't see being a housewife as a necessarily sexist role, I'd say that the vast majority of women know what sexism is, have consciously encountered it in other more overt forms, and consciously oppose it.

Fuck am I glad you're restricted.

The difference is, like I said, you ask any worker, if they could, work without a boss, and be their own boss if they'd like to do it, most would say yes, but they don't see an alternative to Capitalism, its all they know, its all there is, they don't ahve any other options.

Women don't HAVE to be housewfies, they don't HAVE to get married, they don't HAVE to be in a relationship, they can be independanat, but some choose not too, even though the alternative is right there, the worker has no forseable alternative.

Your glad I'm restricted for saying women choosing to get married should have their desicion respected? Or saying that men and women should have to deal with being judged or gaining respect the same way? For saying that if a man or woman wants to call a woman a slut, thats their problem, not societies? Why is that?

[pusher robot]

My male friends don't see me as a sex object, they see me as an individual.


And you know this how?

[Dean]

There are capitalist feminists and socialist feminists, the same as there are capitalist black power people and socialist ones. Its not bourgeois or Proletariat, its different. IDEAS ARE NOT BOURGEOIS OR PROLETARIAT! PEOPLE ARE.



People who partake in class struggle will partake in class struggle whether or not they are involved with gender struggle and vise versa.

Heres my thoughts on feminism, I agree that women are equal to men, and should be payed the same for work, however, there are somethings I think are pointless.

i.e. "Women are viewed as sex objects."

Yeah, by men, why does a womans value have to be based on what a man thinks of her? Also women look at men as sex objects as well, the difference? Men don't care.

"Women are called sluts when they sleep around, men are called players."

Again, women are offended at the word sluts, men take being a player as a complement, if oyu switch the words, men would take sluts as a complement and women would take player as an insult, its all about how women view themselves.

Also the idea that women should advance in the work place and be independant is great, but there are a lot of women that are happy, and want, traditional roles, they want to be the stay at home wife, and that should be respected as well.

"Men do all the killing men do all the wars men are bad."

There have also been many many altruistic men in the past, as well as bad oppressive women, it just so happens that for most of history including today men have more power, thus they are going to abuse it more.


You bring up some good points. I have to say that the concept of men being sex objects has some truth to it, all people have been sexualized at the expense of their individual dignity these days. I want to add that the concept that men should be unemotional, proactive and powerful has been very bad for me.

I am emotional. I get upset, I don't like to take control or make initiative, and plenty of the time I get sick and I can't do things. So I'm not manly, people are disgusted by me when I get upset, and I am expected to be the initiator in general. Sexism hurts both genders.

[RGacky3]

You bring up some good points. I have to say that the concept of men being sex objects has some truth to it, all people have been sexualized at the expense of their individual dignity these days.

Thats not sexism, thats life, thats the way things are, women like sex, so do men, thats the way things work.


I am emotional. I get upset, I don't like to take control or make initiative, and plenty of the time I get sick and I can't do things. So I'm not manly, people are disgusted by me when I get upset, and I am expected to be the initiator in general. Sexism hurts both genders.

Again, I don't consider that sexism, many women are attracted to men who take the initiative, thats the way it is, but like I said, it goes both ways, and both men and women I believe have to come to terms with that.

Feminism has done many good things, given women the vote, an individual voice, given then choices outside family life, given then birth control. But they can go to far.

[eyedrop]

Uh, maybe because other people's perspective of you is incredibly important to your life? You seem to think that people are islands, and their lives are entirely based on their own perspective of themselves - their 'self worth'. Tell me - are you a straight white male whose never experienced an ounce of social discrimination in your life? Because you sure as hell sound like it. For all white males out there. Do an experiment to understand discrimination a little bit more.

Spend a day meeting new people dressed as a hobo, spend the next day in a suit. Observe how people percieve you. Note the differences in how you are welcomed by people, and how they respect you and your opinions.

Now image if you couldn't change your appereance by changing your clothes, because it was your skin, or your breasts, which caused people to percieve you differently.

[Chapter 24]

...

Racism is an ideology that is diametrically opposed to socialism.

There are no socialist black power people.

That's like saying a Stormfronter can be a socialist.


Black power and black nationalism isn't about racism, and obviously your knowledge of it isn't that great. The black power movement was certainly not racist or anti-white, rather a reaction to the racism THEY'VE dealt with.

I think Malcolm X explains it best in the YouTube video "Malcolm X Explains Black Nationalism". I can't post to a link to it due to my post count, unfortunately.

[pusher robot]

For all white males out there. Do an experiment to understand discrimination a little bit more.

Spend a day meeting new people dressed as a hobo, spend the next day in a suit. Observe how people percieve you. Note the differences in how you are welcomed by people, and how they respect you and your opinions.

Now image if you couldn't change your appereance by changing your clothes, because it was your skin, or your breasts, which caused people to percieve you differently.

I'm not sure if that experiment would prove what you think it does - I'd wager that black men in suits are greeted with about the same respect as white men in suits - certainly better than a white man not in a suit. It would seem that clothing is far more important to perception than skin color.

[eyedrop]

I'm not sure if that experiment would prove what you think it does - I'd wager that black men in suits are greeted with about the same respect as white men in suits - certainly better than a white man not in a suit. It would seem that clothing is far more important to perception than skin color. I agree that clothing is more important than skin colour. (I see your writing colour as an american) The point was to get people to understand what indirectly discrimination are. A male and a female is percieved differently today by society, just like one are percieved differently dressed as a hobo compared to while wearing a suit. Most can change how they dress but they can't change which sex they are percieved as. (Let's forget transexuals)

[Killfacer]

i dont think that the perception is the particuarly important bit; women and men are different after all, it is only right that they are perceived differently. It is what the perception is that is particuarly important. As long as the perception is not negative then it is perfectly fine to perceive people differently.

i think people have made a good point also in that there is a problem for men also, they are expected to look nice and are in some cases sexual objects, hence the whole metrosexual thing.

[Sky]

.

[RGacky3]

For all white males out there. Do an experiment to understand discrimination a little bit more.

Spend a day meeting new people dressed as a hobo, spend the next day in a suit. Observe how people percieve you. Note the differences in how you are welcomed by people, and how they respect you and your opinions.

Now image if you couldn't change your appereance by changing your clothes, because it was your skin, or your breasts, which caused people to percieve you differently.

Oh, I'm not saying being dressed as a hobo will make you not be percieved differently, of coarse they will, hell being dressed as a punk will make people make assumptions about you, you can't stop that, and why should you want to? Those assumptions are always going to be made, obviously being dressed in a suit will also make a difference of coarse.

Now then when it comes to skin perhaps, but I'll tell you this much, a black guy in a mercedes benz and a suit, is going to be treated pretty much the same as a white guy in a benz and a suit, but thats beside the point.

Breasts, I'm not sure what your talking about perse, and what you mean when you say 'people'. Yeah, many MEN (about half the population) will judge your physical attractiveness by that, of coarse, and why should'nt they. That being said, if your a lanky or fat dude, chances are you arn't going to have a lot of women wanting to get with you, but thats the way it is, suck it up.

Thatsa not social discrimination, thats not even close to being able to compare it to racial discrimination i.e. you can't eat here because of your skin color, or your inherently inferior because of your skin color.


As long as the perception is not negative then it is perfectly fine to perceive people differently.


exactly, even if the perception is negative, it does'nt really matter, as long as it does'nt turn into encroaching someones freedom or equal right to the world.



Quote:
My male friends don't see me as a sex object, they see me as an individual.


And you know this how?

Very good point :P, many women are blisfully unaware (at least they refuse to recognize), that guys that are "close friends" with them, probably want to sleep with them, its pretty much standard, but they simply don't have the huevos to be up front about it.

[RHIZOMES]

Some forms of feminism are bourgeoisie. But that's true with a lot of things.


...

Racism is an ideology that is diametrically opposed to socialism.

There are no socialist black power people.

That's like saying a Stormfronter can be a socialist.

HAH! Well I see sexual liberation isn't the only subject you're ignorant about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

Political ideology Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism), Democratic socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism), elements of Maoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism) Political position Fiscal: Far left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics), Radical left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_left)
Social: Far left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics), Radical left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_left)

[Bud Struggle]

For all white males out there. Do an experiment to understand discrimination a little bit more.

Spend a day meeting new people dressed as a hobo, spend the next day in a suit. Observe how people percieve you. Note the differences in how you are welcomed by people, and how they respect you and your opinions.

Now image if you couldn't change your appereance by changing your clothes, because it was your skin, or your breasts, which caused people to percieve you differently.

Interesting point. For a good part of the day dress like a hobo. Holes in clothes, bleach stains on clothes (bleach is a big part of my business and all my workers have bleach stains--and so do I.) My haberdasher is, for the most part, Sam's Club. $7. Polio shirts and shorts.

People treat me just fine. I can't say for a second that anyone ever treated me badly because of the way I was dressed. (Except for my kids-who have a bit of an attitude when their friends are comming over.)

People, in general, are very kind and understanding. But in the end it is indeed as RGacky said: all about self worth.


Very good point :P, many women are blisfully unaware (at least they refuse to recognize), that guys that are "close friends" with them, probably want to sleep with them, its pretty much standard, but they simply don't have the huevos to be up front about it.

Damn right about that. Men (including myself) have VERY dirty minds. :(

[Killfacer]

doesnt sound like you were dressed like a hobo Tomk, sounds like you were dressed like a cleaner. Bet your cleanly shaven and behave like a man who owns shit, body language and stuff like that. Plus i bet most hobos dont stink of disinfectant.

[Bud Struggle]

doesnt sound like you were dressed like a hobo Tomk, sounds like you were dressed like a cleaner. Bet your cleanly shaven and behave like a man who owns shit, body language and stuff like that. Plus i bet most hobos dont stink of disinfectant.

I don't always shave--but my wife won't let me leave the house if I stink of anything...

[Killfacer]

haha, i think your point stands though. Most people are pretty reasonable and at least attempt to be understanding (that might just be a completely rose tinted veiw).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

An earlier thread: Feminism is a bourgeois ideology (http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-bourgeois-ideology-t71556/index.html)

[Module]

Are women getting the shit kicked out of them for being women? When your talking about worth, thats something different, worth is an abstract concept that is subjective, not a phisicaly situation, like being beaten, or having a law put up that discriminates against a group. You were talking about 'worth'.
Are you serious? Tell me – what do you think worth is? Why do you think people get the shit kicked out of them?
And yeah, whilst women aren’t beaten up on the street like a black man might be by a bunch of racists, that’s because women are fully integrated into society – discrimination towards women manifests itself differently. Just look back at all the stuff I said about what women suffer – I can’t be bothered typing it all out again. Worth means something a little more than you seem to think it does.
There are no ‘laws’ which directly discriminate against black people in the US, are there? Do you think there’s racial equality in the US?


No men and women can be friends, its common, but if a man views you as a sex object, thats natural too, and there is nothing wrong with it, you can't expect him to simply have respect for you just because, you, like a man, must earn it, if a man wants to view women as a sex object, so be it, who cares, its up to you if you want to sleep with him, or have contact with him. Don’t give me that ‘you must earn it’ bullshit. Unless you’re a hermit, having respect for those around you is part of actually living and functioning as a part of society. You try going out, in the workplace for instance and not having any respect for anyone by default – you tell me what happens. I’ll be genuinely interested to know.
Yes – men and women being friends is very common. There’s some news! Why is it ‘natural’ for a man to see a woman purely as a sex object? What should be ‘natural’ is seeing a woman as a human being. Viewing somebody as a ‘sex object’ is quite different from simply being sexually attracted to somebody. When I’m sexually attracted to somebody, and I think when most people I know are sexually attracted to somebody they still have respect for them as people – they acknowledge that the individual has a personality, intellect, interests, thoughts and feelings, and they acknowledge that individual as a human being. That is quite different from seeing somebody – especially all women – as a ‘sex object’, something which is there simply for your sexual pleasure.
You could very well say it’s ‘natural’ that a white man views a black man as inferior, couldn’t you? There is nothing ‘natural’ about that.



Those are changes in concrete laws, not nessesarily attitudes. Also I was refering more on an individual basis. Why do you think the laws changed? What, you think that just suddenly everybody decided it was okay if certain groups of people weren’t persecuted anymore? Individuals are not islands. They are socialised within society, surrounded with certain social attitudes which to the greatest extent dictate how they function within a society. Do you know what a society is? It’s made up of individuals, and it makes individuals.



Patriarchy, nowerdays at least, is not legally backed up. Since when do men think their better than women? Most, think of them differently, they don't compare men to women, and why are women judging themselves based on mens standards? I don’t know how this has escaped you, but the entire complexities of society are not dictated by the law. Racism still exists, sexism still exists, religious discrimination still exists but under the law there is gender, racial, religious equality. Haven’t you ever stopped for a minute to fathom why this might be the case?! Men have always thought they were better than women. It’s only been recently that the scientific evidence has managed to prove wrong the bullshit ‘fact’ that men are more intelligent than women; and surprise, surprise, these attitudes still remain! Just like racist attitudes still remain though legally there is racial equality! Social discrimination doesn’t just come and go with the law!
It is passed down from generation to generation and takes generations to get rid of.


Society as a whole perpetuates sexism? I'm not so sure about that, and to be fair, most men, at least in western countries, have no problem with "sluts," they'll sleep with them, they probably won't marry them, or have a serious relationship with them, but unfortunately, many women base their worth on that, if a man loves them, you can't blaim the man for that. Right … so you actually believe … that because men are happy to sleep with ‘sluts’, but they’re not interested in them as human beings and are perfectly fine for them to be labeled as ‘sluts’ that this is … okay?
Right, so I can’t blame the capitalist class for exploiting the working class, either, right? It’s natural human behaviour, you can’t blame them, nothing wrong with that!
You think there’s gender equality you’re kidding yourself. Why don’t you think women do that? Sleep with ‘players’? Let me guess – it’s ‘nature’, right?


Well, I don't have any evidence perse, but look around, most couples in relationships look down on their mates cheeting :P, be it men or women, they don't like it, and I have a hunch it has something to do with love, and sex being associated with that, that has nothing to do with sexual property, because a woman will brake up with a man that cheats too (at least she should), when you reduce relationships to a pure mechanical formula, of property, master and servant, your taking out the whole point of it, love and companionship. ”At least she should”. It’s more socially acceptable for a man to sleep around than it is for a woman to. A woman who cheats on her partner is demonised by society; she’s a slut, or if she’s with a cheating man she’s the horrible ‘other woman’, the temptress – a man who cheats ... well he just can’t help himself. He was oppressed by monogamy anyway, and was tempted by the other woman.



That being said, we are not talking about social discrimination, we are talking about individuals, if a women views her self, or her friends view her as a 'slut' thats not social discrimination like racism, no, its just their judgemental views, which the woman (or man for that matter) can confront them on or not. But also switch it around, when a man sleeps around, probably some women will look at it negatively, but so what? They don't like it. Okay, let’s get a couple of things established here …
Social discrimination is perpetrated by individuals and society. Individuals learn social discrimination in the process of socialisation. Socialisation is the process of learning about and how to function within one’s own society. This includes social attitudes which are perpetrated by the individuals around you that make up your society, as well as the culture in which you live which also draws from and educates yourself and the individuals around you. These social attitudes which you learn effect how you see others. If these social attitudes include sexism, as Western social attitudes do, you learn to see either sex differently. In the case of Western societies, these social attitudes include, but are not limited to – white people are smarter and more successful, to a large degree homosexuality is ‘unnatural’, capitalism is good, Middle Eastern people are potential terrorists, and women are more emotional, less intelligent, and should have children.
Now – these are social attitudes – but do you know how social attitudes manifest themselves?
The attitude that while people are smarter and more successful leads to employers preferring white people in interviews – their racial culture is more of the image of ‘success’ due to their racial privilege. This leads to white people having more economic opportunities and a higher chance of living a decent life, and the opposite for black people. (And of course I could take that further but I won’t in this discussion.)
The attitude that homosexuality is unnatural leads to legal legislation banning marriage between same-sex couples, also same-sex couples are far less likely to be allowed to adopt a child, and are more likely to be abused on the street, for example.
The attitude that capitalism is good leads to the justification of economic predatory policies, the belief that the rich worked hard for their wealth and that the poor are lazy, the stifling or misdirection of class war and the illusionary dream of economic freedom for the working class.
The attitude that Middle Eastern people are terrorists leads to social exclusion and alienation of these people, society may refuse to allow, for instance, Mosques or Islamic schools to be built in the belief that they will breed terrorism, social oppression leads to economic oppression, they may find it hard to get a job, and so on.
And finally, the attitude that women are more emotional, less intelligent and should have children; this leads to women not being taken seriously in normal conversation on certain topics such as politics, science etc., they are less able to get jobs, especially those which are well paid, and especially when they are 30 – 40 years old where employers are sometimes specifically told to avoid women of ‘child-bearing age’. Because men earn more than women do it makes more sense for them to leave work to raise the children simply on an economic basis (ignoring in this example, the social aspect). This further gives men a head start in the work force – with more opportunity to further their career, and indeed more freedom to work where they want. This ultimately gives women far less financial freedom. They are less able to get good jobs and may be forced to stay dependent on their husband.
If they become single mothers they’re twice as fucked because they have to be able to afford child care whilst trying to find worse-paid work to feed themselves and their child as well as have somewhere to live. They can’t get jobs in ‘public life’ without being young and attractive, because of the perception of women as a gender as ‘sex objects’ their personal merits are discounted largely in favour of men if they are unable to be attractive to them. Many female news reporters, in Australia, get fired once they get too old and the networks aren’t even shy about it. Jobs in which there are more women, or even dominated by women include things like teaching, catering, nursing etc. which are, coincidentally, low paid jobs for the reason they have traditionally been seen as ‘women’s work’. In these jobs positive discrimination towards men is an attempt to get more men into this area of work, for example in teaching according to my mother who is a teacher, there is a great deal of positive discrimination towards men. However, this positive discrimination is limited in other areas of work which are overwhelmingly male dominated – presumably because it is so very general. Women are patronised in everyday interaction with men, or if they look attractive, even other women due to the perception of them as ‘ditzy’, naïve and emotional. Men are seen as more reliable and rational and are again henceforth more able to get a good job.
Women are told they should have children. This gives them less ambition in working life, instead they want to find a husband and ‘settle down’. This is an attitude which remains from the period where women were the property of men and they didn’t have jobs at all because they weren’t allowed to – their only hope was to find a man who could give them financial security. Indeed it remains to be the case that to get far in the workplace women have to rely on the men around them, because it is male dominated, especially as you go further up the hierarchy. Because of these social attitudes towards women, as well as the fact that men are already more successful than them, it makes it harder for them to do this.
Because of women’s economic subservience to men, they equally become socially subservient to men. They have to look attractive to men where men don’t have to, they have to stay faithful to men when men won’t have to, they have to try harder to sound serious and intelligent to be taken that way than men have to. They have to give up their lives to raise children largely by themselves, and if they don’t they are looked down upon. A good example was around this time last year, the present Deputy Opposition Leader Julia Gillard was called “deliberately barren” by a Liberal party senator and therefore unfit for leadership.
The judgmental views of other people on the basis of their social actions in relation to their social role are examples of social discrimination. Social discrimination against women as women is just as much social discrimination as that against an ethnic minority as an ethnic minority. It is just as bad, and it is just as oppressive.


Its like complaining that people don't like the way you dress, that’s not social discrimination. If they complain about the way you dress because you should be dressing a certain way because of your gender, ethnicity etc. then yes it is social discrimination.



Women are payed less that’s true, and I'm against that, if that’s true, but I believe that has more to do with the market than discrimination, or a mix of the two, but its probably individual employers that think that women would be worse workers, but like I said, women should get the same pay for the same work. How do you figure it’s “more to do with the market”? Do you think that it just so happens that the majority of employers happen to be sexist as individuals – but that says nothing about society?


They suffer rape too, and that’s horrible, but men do as well, also rape isn’t social discrimination, its an individual crime, that again is horrible and disgusting, but not social discrimination. Don’t trivialise the issue of rape against women by saying “men do as well”. Of course men suffer rape – but we’re not talking about men, we’re talking about women. The simple fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of rapes, a woman is the victim. Women suffer rape as women.


They suffer physical abuse, yes, but so do men, from their spouse, infact at pretty much a equal rate (although mens abuse is mor severe due to their streangth), but again, thats not social discriminaiton, those are individual relationships gone bad, by men that have no respect for women, and vise versa. There is a reason why these men have no respect for women. That reason is social attitudes which exist within our society!
But yes, that’s fair enough.


They have less financial freedom? They can do with their money, what men can do. I’m saying they have less money, period, not that they can’t spend it on what they want. They simply don’t have as much.


Less intelectual freedom? How so. Men are expected to be interested in politics, the world around them etc. and expected to go out and get a good job one day, whilst women are expected to be interested in finding a husband and having children.
I watched an interesting documentary last year in my Society and Culture class called ‘Sex and Gender’ (though I haven’t been able to get a hold of it since, sadly) which found that families with girls were more likely to keep her inside, keep her from getting dirty or straying too far from their parents views, whilst boys were allowed to go out, run around and explore the world around them. Boys were given toys like puzzles, or sports equipment, whilst girls would be given things like toy babies or mini ovens. The… analogy (I guess)… they used was “we give our girls roots and our boys wings”.
Because women are expected to stay at home and look after the children, men are more able to go out, get an education, get an interesting and intellectually challenging job.


These things are generalyl speaking not form social discrimination, and they don't have to do with "worth" which is abstract and subjective and in reality, up to the person. Somebody’s worth is decided by those around them. It is a social thing. Worth and ‘self-worth’ (which is even more abstract and even more irrelevant to social discrimination) are two different things.
These things are blatantly from social discrimination. Since I’ve just told you what social discrimination is, I’m not sure there’s much else I can say if you don’t get it after reading that. It seems like it’s too much effort for somebody who, in that case, could just be beyond rationality.


Social change, changes situations, changes hiarchies and structures, not perspectives, especially not perspectives that have nothing to do with social structures, like if a women is viewed as a slut or not. A woman being viewed as a slut is quite obviously part of social structure. Women are denied sexual freedom and expected to remain faithful. That is because they are socially subservient to men. That clearly is about social structure.
Social change changes society – society is made up of attitudes and perspectives which are effected by, and influence and accommodate hierarchies and laws. And I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that society has social structure.



yes, I do, I don't like oppression either, I do want equal opportunity for everyone, and freedom for everyone, men and women, I want women to be able to do what they want, stay single, marry, work, contribute, gain the same responsability as a man, sure, but that does'nt depend of if 'Jack' does'nt respect 'Mary' and just wants to bone her. Mary should be able to do what she wants no matter what Jack thinks of her. So basically, you want women to be able to do what they want, but you don’t think men should have to give up their privilege?
That’s like saying “I was the working class to be equal to the capitalist class, but capitalists shouldn’t have to give up their wealth”.
Both women and men are, funnily enough, part of society. It’s not just women’s responsibility to gain their equality! That’s a complete misunderstanding of what society, and oppression is, and if you don’t mind me saying, completely void of common sense.


I'll take another example, when gay people look at each other as pure sex objects, are they oppressing each other? Err, chances are they don’t. If gay people look at each other as pure sex objects simply because they’re of a certain gender then yeah, they have sexist attitudes. That’s pretty obvious. I also think it’s pretty obvious, though, that simply doesn’t happen in the absence of dehumanising social discrimination.


Like I said before, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as a women (at least you should), but also those around you have the freedom to think of you as they please, to view you as they please, as long as they don't infringe on your freedom specifically, that’s something we all have to live with. And societal attitudes towards women do infringe upon the liberty of women, as I’ve said! Would you use that argument to justify white supremacist attitudes in your society? “White people have to right to see those of ethnic minorities as inferior to them.” We have the right to be treated equally, and fight for that equality where it does not exist.


If Jill wants to sleep around, and her friends think she's a slut, and she thinkgs she's a slut and feels bad about it, whreas jack does the same and his friends give him the high five and he's proud, thats not social-injustice. Then what the fuck do you think it is!? If Jill is seen as a slut for sleeping around and made to feel bad for it and Jack isn’t simply because of their gender, then yeah. It’s social injustice!
If Jill is denied a job by an employer because she’s black and Jack is hired because he’s white – is that social injustice? I’m making comparison to racism because you, like so many other so called ‘leftist’ sexists probably do not acknowledge sexism as a genuine issue, even if you won’t admit it, but do acknowledge racism.


Which can or cannot be followed, those are loose traditions (not laws), and customs that some choose to follow, others don't. Many women follow their maternal instinct, and they want a family, they wnat to be a wife and a mother, and sure you can judge them if you want, but I don't see why you would, the same way I would'nt judge a woman that does otherwise. What maternal instinct? Where is your proof? I don’t have a maternal instinct. I don’t judge women who want a family; of course that’s their choice. But I do judge a woman who feels it is her duty to have a family, to be a stay at home mother who doesn’t work, intellectually stimulate herself or contribute anything to society.


I don't have proof, and I'm not going to look it up, because you as well as I know, asking both men and women, many want to have children, many want to have families, its maternal and paternal, I would'nt put that all on "societal expectations" as much as biology, (i.e. species like to reproduce). Of course you don’t have any proof. That’s because it’s a bullshit idea used to justify the place of women as housewives and stay at home mothers.
Human being reproduction does not mean that women and men are predisposed to any ‘maternal and paternal’ behaviour, and does not mean there is such thing as a “maternal instinct”.


Women thinking differently from men, of coarse is no justification for social oppression, I agree, but women deciding to be married (with the ability to get a divorce when they choose, and generally get the kids and a large chunk of the husbands cash with it), or a woman being viewed a certain way by individuals based on the choices she mans, which happens to men as well a lot, is no social oppression. Yes it is. It’s social … it’s oppressive as I’ve already outlined … it’s social oppression.
Ugh I’ll reply to the rest later. What a horrible frustrating discussion this is.

[Module]

Very good point :P, many women are blisfully unaware (at least they refuse to recognize), that guys that are "close friends" with them, probably want to sleep with them, its pretty much standard, but they simply don't have the huevos to be up front about it.
You have no idea. My male friends (especially my closest ones) would have no interest in me like that. That would just be fucking weird, I think we'd all agree.
Just because you're friends with the girls you know because you want to sleep with them does not mean all men are. Funnily enough, some men actually see women as human beings, and are capable of being in platonic relationships with them the same as men.
For god's sake, how old are you?

[Killfacer]

im pretty sure we are passed the whole "all women are meant to stay at home and have children" stage. I dont know where your from, but there are as many women going to university as blokes from my college.

Also its impossible for you to say that yuou KNOW your male friends have no sexual interest in you.

[pusher robot]

Also its impossible for you to say that yuou KNOW your male friends have no sexual interest in you.Not necessarily. They could be gay.

[Bud Struggle]

You have no idea. My male friends (especially my closest ones) would have no interest in me like that.

I wouldn't count on it. Women have no idea about the thoughts that go on in a man's head.


Funnily enough, some men actually see women as human beings, and are capable of being in platonic relationships with them the same as men.
Maybe--but again, I wouldn't count on it. :cool::rolleyes:

[Kami]

I wouldn't count on it. Women have no idea about the thoughts that go on in a man's head. This is the sort of foolishness that appears when you start thinking that half of humanity think the same way. It's really rather silly.

Maybe--but again, I wouldn't count on it. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_cool.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gifI would.

[Jazzratt]

I wouldn't count on it. Women have no idea about the thoughts that go on in a man's head.

No one has any idea about the thoughts that go on in anyone elses head, but people can make intelligent guesses based on the behaviour of others.

[Bud Struggle]

No one has any idea about the thoughts that go on in anyone elses head, but people can make intelligent guesses based on the behaviour of others.

And from that observation, in general--what kind of thoughts do you think guys are thinking when it comes to women?

For example where discussing a successful and powerful head of state that happnes to be a woman.

http://www.brama.com/news/press/2007/thumbs/070220tymoshenko200300.jpg

http://www.ultrabrown.com/wp-content/uploads/yulia-tymoshenko-1.jpg

http://bp2.blogger.com/_o8IYMUN48HY/R7UMr5QU8CI/AAAAAAAAB_s/0hWmcgr74Sc/s400/_Picture_file_path_7588.jpg

:)

[Jazzratt]

And from that observation, in general--what kind of thoughts do you think guys are thinking when it comes to women?

What the hell kind of question is that? No one is as two-dimensional as you seem to be implying, if there were two people and someone asked me (or, since as a neurodivergent I'm not the best example here, most sane people) what any person was thinking when it came to any other person and the clue you gave them was "person A is a man and person B is a woman" then you would have said absolutley fuck all of any help in guessing. Or, to put it another way, even if a man really plays up his machismo and pig-headed chauvinism he still won't have coherent thoughts on "women" as a single group - there is no logical way to hold a single opinion about ~3.5bn people.

Even with your specific example your question doesn't make sense because you assume men as a whole share a single, hivemind type thoughts about her.

[Bud Struggle]

What the hell kind of question is that? No one is as two-dimensional as you seem to be implying, if there were two people and someone asked me (or, since as a neurodivergent I'm not the best example here, most sane people) what any person was thinking when it came to any other person and the clue you gave them was "person A is a man and person B is a woman" then you would have said absolutley fuck all of any help in guessing. Or, to put it another way, even if a man really plays up his machismo and pig-headed chauvinism he still won't have coherent thoughts on "women" as a single group - there is no logical way to hold a single opinion about ~3.5bn people.

Even with your specific example your question doesn't make sense because you assume men as a whole share a single, hivemind type thoughts about her.

I'm not saying they think ANYTHING. But I'm saying that it's very much a possibility that that a man can have ANY KIND of thoughts about a woman--and not particularly show it.

I'm saying that guys in business or political situation often behave very well--but oftimes their minds are working in a completely other direction.

Guys can be pretty phoney about stuff.

[Jazzratt]

I'm not saying they think ANYTHING. But I'm saying that it's very much a possibility that that a man can have ANY KIND of thoughts about a woman--and not particularly show it.

I'm saying that guys in business or political situation often behave very well--but oftimes their minds are working in a completely other direction.

Guys can be pretty phoney about stuff.

Most people can be phoney about stuff, but if you're around someone long enough to be their friend you tend to be able to, unless you're a social retard [like myself] or they're particularly good at hiding such things [like a lot of sociopaths], tell more about what they're actually feeling.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Short answer? Yes, feminism is a bourgeois ideology. We had a long thread about it here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-bourgeois-ideology-t71556/index.html?t=71556


Feminism is a bourgeois ideology. It pushes the lie that the main division in society is between women and men instead of between classes. It asserts that all women have more in common with each other than they do with any man.

In contrast, communists emphasize class and point out that female workers have more in common with their male coworkers than they ever will with female bosses.

There is no "socialist" or "Marxist" feminism. Communists fight for the liberation of women as a part of the fight for the liberation of humanity. Anyone who separates themselves from the class struggle to put 'special attention' on the woman question -- whether or not they mix in some 'Marxist' terminology -- has accepted feminist ideology, and no longer has anything to do with "Marxism" or the fight for socialism.

Anyone who has a basic materialist understanding knows this..

The FSP/Radical Women describe themselves as “socialist feminists” attempting to square the circle between Marxism and feminism, although the two are fundamentally counterposed. Feminism is a bourgeois ideology that asserts that the main division in society is between men and women, rather than class versus class. Its logic is that all women have more in common with each other than they do with men, regardless of class. Women’s oppression is viewed as a set of bad ideas and policies stemming from the existing patriarchy. As Bolshevik party leader Alexandra Kollontai wrote, the feminists aim “to achieve the same advantages, the same power, the same rights within capitalist society as those possessed now by their husbands, fathers and brothers” (“Women’s Day,” February 1913). For bourgeois feminists, equal rights means the equal “right” for women to hire and fire workers and to run the capitalist state. - Free Abortion on Demand! (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.icl-fi.org/english/asp/194/abortion.html) (Sparts)

Any struggle that does not challenge the material basis of women’s oppression will not liberate women. Feminism is a bourgeois ideology that places the source of women’s oppression in ideas, equating the fight for the liberation of women with the fight for women’s democratic rights, i.e., for the equality of women with men under capitalism. Feminism thus opposes the possibility of liberating the masses of working women in reality, through the overthrow of the economic system that is the source of their oppression, and instead presents the main division in society as that between men and women. The goal of bourgeois feminism is to allow bourgeois and petty-bourgeois women into the male club of power and privilege, as an enemy of the proletariat. http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv...-abortion.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/897/mex-abortion.html)

[In Czechoslovakia] Feminism was considered by conscientious female members of the Communist Party to be a bourgeois ideology, whose aim was to splinter the unified battle of the working class against class enemies and capitalism.
- http://www.c3.hu/scripta/scripta0/re.../01/09fsik.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.c3.hu/scripta/scripta0/replika/honlap/english/01/09fsik.htm)

“Solidarity between working men and working women, common activity, a common goal, a common path to this goal—such is the solution...” - Krupskya on the liberation of women, which can only come through socialist revolution.

[Jazzratt]

Short answer? Yes, feminism is a bourgeois ideology. We had a long thread about it here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-bourgeois-ideology-t71556/index.html?t=71556

If you're trying to use that thread as evidence of your statement then it's a poor show. It becomes immediatly obvious to anyone reading that thread that the premise ("feminism is bourgeois") was very much opposed and that those arguing it were in a clear minority and were not arguing very well.

[politics student]

I am shocked how little you guys have read of socialist feminism. (i would link a few essays which wwere enjoyable reads but I still can not post links!!!!!)

Gender is culturally, by breaking down the culture divides on career choices, pay and workers rights make society much more equal rather than gender roles being forced on people based on sex.

While I would agree liberal feminism designs a divide between men and women which allows both to be oppressed in a capitalist system using mass media.

Saying that I even respect some radical feminism (not the all feminists should be lesbians or they are sleeping with the enemy lot) but I support the radical feminists on reproduction, this comes from my interest of trans humanism part of which is post genderism.

I see no reasons why men and women should be treated differently.

[politics student]

If you're trying to use that thread as evidence of your statement then it's a poor show. It becomes immediatly obvious to anyone reading that thread that the premise ("feminism is bourgeois") was very much opposed and that those arguing it were in a clear minority and were not arguing very well.

How is feminism bourgeois?

Feminism is part of the struggle to free the human race from the bonds of stupidity from traditional systems.

I personally enjoy the gay rights movement as I see that as part of the same struggle, the revolution of the workers is only part of the species struggle.

[bcbm]

Short answer? Yes, feminism is a bourgeois ideology. We had a long thread about it here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-bourgeois-ideology-t71556/index.html?t=71556

Why would you continue to stick to your false position and then, as if it is proof, post a link to a thread where your position is completely demolished and you ignore all meaningful critiques, eventually not responding at all despite being asked to? :confused:

[Jazzratt]

How is feminism bourgeois?

It isn't in and of itself bourgeois and I've never stated that. There are bourgeios currents, just as there are socialist and anarchist currents.


Feminism is part of the struggle to free the human race from the bonds of stupidity from traditional systems.

http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/output/motivator2635376.jpg


I personally enjoy the gay rights movement as I see that as part of the same struggle, the revolution of the workers is only part of the species struggle.

What does this clause mean?