Comparing women under communism & capitalism

[ev]

I have noticed recently that when I compare women in capitalist societies to that of women in communist states that women in communist states have better characteristics. (These are not physical characteristics.)

I believe this is due to the environment in which they were raised and the ideals that women have and are taught. For example, in the USSR women were given equal rights before other capitalist countries and because communist ideology promotes egalitarianism the women their were conditioned, raised with a social responsibility and therefore developed a positive character due to it (and I'm sure other things may have contributed).

Now when I compare this to women in the US today, to be honest it makes me sick, you see teenage girls looking up to people like Paris Hilton, The Pussy Cat Dolls etc. etc. and developing negative characteristics such as Promiscuity and among others! What is worst is that it is deemed acceptable by capitalist society!

My question is this, and perhaps I have not composed it correctly, can someone to point out the differences in women from capitalist and communist states (Preferably using the USSR and the US as examples) and tell me what makes the women in the opposing state different. Is it their materialistic views, religion, the objectification of women, their role models, their ideals, the social conscious, the social responsibility, the social structure? What?! :confused:

If we could get a discussion on this that would be great.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Now when I compare this to women in the US today, to be honest it makes me sick, you see teenage girls looking up to people like Paris Hilton, The Pussy Cat Dolls etc. etc. and developing negative characteristics such as Promiscuity and among others! What is worst is that it is deemed acceptable by capitalist society!

What's wrong with promiscuity?


My question is this, and perhaps I have not composed it correctly, can someone to point out the differences in women from capitalist and communist states (Preferably using the USSR and the US as examples) and tell me what makes the women in the opposing state different. Is it their materialistic views, religion, the objectification of women, their role models, their ideals, the social conscious, the social responsibility, the social structure? What?! :confused:

Social conditions.

[Module]

Is it just me or is this thread just a little bit... patronising?


I have noticed recently that when I compare women in capitalist societies to that of women in communist states that women in communist states have better characteristics. (These are not physical characteristics.)

I believe this is due to the environment in which they were raised and the ideals that women have and are taught. For example, in the USSR women were given equal rights before other capitalist countries and because communist ideology promotes egalitarianism the women their were conditioned, raised with a social responsibility and therefore developed a positive character due to it (and I'm sure other things may have contributed).
Women have always been raised with a social responsibility. A responsibility to do all the housework, look after the children, feed the husband, look pretty, not be ‘promiscuous’, be socially subservient .. you know .. that’s a pretty big social responsibility.
I think you should do a little research on sexism in the Soviet Union, because let me tell you, just because women were given “equal rights” does not mean that they were equal. By that logic women are equal now, in the US. (But then of course you don’t believe as such, apparently, by your next paragraph you continue to single out women’s experience under capitalism to emphasise their specific negative ‘characteristics’.)


Now when I compare this to women in the US today, to be honest it makes me sick, you see teenage girls looking up to people like Paris Hilton, The Pussy Cat Dolls etc. etc. and developing negative characteristics such as Promiscuity and among others! What is worst is that it is deemed acceptable by capitalist society! Why shouldn’t it be deemed acceptable for women to be promiscuous?
No, teenage girls probably don’t have many positive role models in the US, but why don’t you tell me some positive role models for young women in the USSR, if you’re comparing them?


My question is this, and perhaps I have not composed it correctly, can someone to point out the differences in women from capitalist and communist states (Preferably using the USSR and the US as examples) and tell me what makes the women in the opposing state different. Is it their materialistic views, religion, the objectification of women, their role models, their ideals, the social conscious, the social responsibility, the social structure? What?! :confused:

If we could get a discussion on this that would be great. What makes women in a capitalist and “communist state” different would be, simply, about the same kinds of things that make men different.

[apathy maybe]

Define "positive characteristics".


Now when I compare this to women in the US today, to be honest it makes me sick, you see teenage girls looking up to people like Paris Hilton, The Pussy Cat Dolls etc. etc. and developing negative characteristics such as Promiscuity and among others! What is worst is that it is deemed acceptable by capitalist society!

What is wrong with "promiscuity"? What is wrong with "tarting up"?


Why do you only ask about women? Are men the same no matter what culture they are raised in? Why aren't you complaining about men's promiscuity?

------

While I personally object to mass corporate culture (including the sexualising of children), I don't see a problem with people doing what they like.

And I foresee that in a future perfect society, sex with be as innocent and unremarkable as conversation. (Bonobos do it, why can't we?)

[revolution inaction]

I have noticed recently that when I compare women in capitalist societies to that of women in communist states that women in communist states have better characteristics. (These are not physical characteristics.)

First of all there are no communist states, the concept doesn't makes sense.




Now when I compare this to women in the US today, to be honest it makes me sick, you see teenage girls looking up to people like Paris Hilton, The Pussy Cat Dolls etc. etc. and developing negative characteristics such as Promiscuity and among others! What is worst is that it is deemed acceptable by capitalist society!

what's wrong with being promiscuous?

[ev]

What's wrong with promiscuity?
Why shouldn’t it be deemed acceptable for women to be promiscuous?
What is wrong with "promiscuity"? What is wrong with "tarting up"? To certain people promiscuity is an acceptable behavioral trait, personally I thought that the word slut (a word used to describe sexual promiscuity) had a pejorative connotation meaning that it is generally looked down upon. I'm sorry, again I don't mean to offend anyone who is promiscuous but this is how i feel regarding that.

I would like you to disregard 'promiscuous' from my main argument and move to replace it with a 'negative trait'


Is it just me or is this thread just a little bit... patronising?I should have been prepared for this and actually taken the time to compose my question in a better format to minimize the mis-interpretations that would arise. Sorry.


Women have always been raised with a social responsibility. A responsibility to do all the housework, look after the children, feed the husband, look pretty, not be ‘promiscuous’, be socially subservient .. you know .. that’s a pretty big social responsibility.
I think you should do a little research on sexism in the Soviet Union, because let me tell you, just because women were given “equal rights” does not mean that they were equal. By that logic women are equal now, in the US.I totally agree with you and you have a valid point in regard to sexism. The Soviet Union did experience sexism and unfortunately this was evident until the 60's, however, the Soviet Union did promote equality for women through the promotion of things like International Women's Day. However you are still right as I do not believe they officially introduced some type of anti-sexism legislation.

You are also right about the social responsibility of having to contribute and do the housework, look after their children and feed their husbands. However they have a bigger responsibility than that, and that is labour, labour is a shared responsibility and women have the right to work and be paid the same amount for the same labour as the opposite sex, are you saying that women only have the responsibility to clean a house and feed a family? What about a woman like paris hilton, okay, let me take a new approach. YOU compare the social responsibility Paris Hilton has compared to a female factory worker in a socialist state.


( your next paragraph you continue to single out women’s experience under capitalism to emphasise their specific negative ‘characteristics’.)I admit I do this, because women living in a capitalist regime develop these negative characteristics due to the social structure they are living in.


No, teenage girls probably don’t have many positive role models in the US, but why don’t you tell me some positive role models for young women in the USSR, if you’re comparing them?Zina Portnova is a fine example of a positive role model in the USSR. I'm not saying that there are no positive role models in the United States but what positive role models within the US are exposed by mainstream media to the youth?



What makes women in a capitalist and “communist state” different would be, simply, about the same kinds of things that make men different.I agree, both men and women are made different, but what is it? the social structure? what part of the social structure? I'm looking forward to your reply.


Why do you only ask about women? Are men the same no matter what culture they are raised in? Why aren't you complaining about men's promiscuity?Personally I believe that male promiscuity does not significantly alter between capitalist and communist social structures as biologically males are more inclined to be less promiscuous than women. Anyway promiscuity is not the point, i was identifying that as a negative characteristic and by my ethical standards promiscuity is a negative characteristic. Also, I believe that negative male characteristics develop due to the capitalist social structure, greed & materialism are a good example of this.


While I personally object to mass corporate culture (including the sexualising of children)I do to


And I foresee that in a future perfect society, sex with be as innocent and unremarkable as conversation. (Bonobos do it, why can't we?)I'm not sure what framework you would like this 'perfect society' to be in but assuming by your avatar your an anarchist then.. hmm, i'd like you to elaborate further, PM me. Also, what is a Bonobo?


First of all there are no communist states, the concept doesn't makes sense.I was referring to the USSR, China, Cuba etc. the closest thing, please don't flame me on technicalities regarding degenerated workers' states. I'm assuming that is where you are coming from, PM me otherwise.

[apathy maybe]

I'm not sure what framework you would like this 'perfect society' to be in but assuming by your avatar your an anarchist then.. hmm, i'd like you to elaborate further, PM me. Also, what is a Bonobo?
No need to bother sending a PM. Yes, I'm an anarchist. However, when I say "future perfect society", I am assuming that it is a society that is equally acceptable to "communists" and "anarchists" of all sorts. I just use it to get around semantic problems that sometimes crop up.

Class-less and state-less are two defining characteristics of a "future perfect society".
Bonobo's have lots of sex and are the closest genetic living species to humans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior)


Personally I believe that male promiscuity does not significantly alter between capitalist and communist social structures as biologically males are more inclined to be less promiscuous than women.Bullshit.


To certain people promiscuity is an acceptable behavioral trait, personally I thought that the word slut (a word used to describe sexual promiscuity) had a pejorative connotation meaning that it is generally looked down upon. I'm sorry, again I don't mean to offend anyone who is promiscuous but this is how i feel regarding that.
Around here, most of us are free thinkers and don't agree with moralistic bullshit inherited from religion. That includes attitudes to sex.

I would like you to disregard 'promiscuous' from my main argument and move to replace it with a 'negative trait'
Like what? You don't seem to have an argument at all.

You make the claim that in "socialist" countries women have less "negative traits" (the one example you give doesn't even matter apparently, because we don't consider it to be negative). You provide no statistics, merely opinion.

----

You also didn't really answer my question, why women? Why not men? Do not men have negative traits as well? Are men more likely to have more negative traits in capitalist countries as compared to "socialist" countries?

[ev]

Bullshit.

Yeah.. I should have just said "I can't be fucked to look up statistical data relating to sex in the USSR and US" I doubt there would be any, heh. Statistically women do have more sexual partners than men and therefore could be considered more promiscuous, I shouldn't have said "biologically males are more inclined" instead i should have said something like "due to female hormones and their menstrual cycle (which i wont elaborate on) females experiences heightened feelings of sexual attraction towards.. etc. etc." You get my point.


Around here, most of us are free thinkers and don't agree with moralistic bullshit inherited from religion. That includes attitudes to sex.

What's wrong with moralistic bullshit? I don't believe religion is where we 'inherited' our morals, morals are apart of human nature.


Like what? You don't seem to have an argument at all.

Like what negative trait you ask? well through capitalist culture women (AS WELL AS MEN) become materialistic, greedy etc. It effects women and men equally however i would like to focus on women for the sole reason of exposing why these behavioral traits have developed due to the social structure the individual has been raised in.


You also didn't really answer my question, why women? Why not men? Do not men have negative traits as well? Are men more likely to have more negative traits in capitalist countries as compared to "socialist" countries?

Why not men? that is a good point, men do develop negative characteristics due to the socioeconomic structure of capitalism, I do not deny this, we are not impervious to greed and materialistic ambitions. And of course there is no doubt that men will develop negative characteristic traits in a capitalist country as compared to a "socialist" country, under the same economic conditions of course.


You make the claim that in "socialist" countries women have less "negative traits" (the one example you give doesn't even matter apparently, because we don't consider it to be negative). You provide no statistics, merely opinion.

I shouldn't have used that as an example infringing my own personal ethics upon everyone else with the assumption that everyone else had the same ethics was the wrong thing to do. I should have specified a 'negative trait' however i don't think i can brand a gender-orientated 'negative trait' to this issue at this point in time.

The main purpose of this thread was to highlight just how the capitalist social structure changes women, and how the characteristics of women such as social responsibility change for the better under socialist governance.

[Black Dagger]

Why is this in the science and environment forum? There's no scientific content at all (quite the opposite).

Chit-chat maybe?

[Demogorgon]

Teenage girls (well some of them, hardly all) look up to the likes of Paris Hilton because silliness is part of being a teenager. It is a phase people go through before growing out of. Do you think teenagers were not silly in the Soviet Union too?

[Palmares]

Why is this in the science and environment forum? There's no scientific content at all (quite the opposite).

Chit-chat maybe?

Exactly.

I don't really see where the argument is here.

The only real different I can see between these so-called communist and capitalist countries is that, the Soviet Union led the way with some sort of egalitarianism of both binary genders, mainly being composed of some womyn being represented in high positions they previously hadn't.

In a nutshell, I don't see how there is a huge difference here (systematically), especially historically, unless there is some sort of social revolution that deconstructs and transforms the social relations between all genders.

I think it is also especially evident that the argument presented here contains a very similar type of moralistic social conservatism endemic of capitalism with it's buddy religion in step.

[JimmyJazz]

Wow, just wow http://core.binghamton.edu/%7Egunnerj/smilies/emot-psyduck.gif

[apathy maybe]

Yeah.. I should have just said "I can't be fucked to look up statistical data relating to sex in the USSR and US" I doubt there would be any, heh. Statistically women do have more sexual partners than men and therefore could be considered more promiscuous, I shouldn't have said "biologically males are more inclined" instead i should have said something like "due to female hormones and their menstrual cycle (which i wont elaborate on) females experiences heightened feelings of sexual attraction towards.. etc. etc." You get my point.
Bullshit.
Men have more to gain by being promiscuous. If you have nine women and one man, you can get nine children out of it. However, nine men and one women will not make nine children. Women tend to have more to gain by staying with one partner, and have a stable relationship while raising children. And men, well they can have multiple partners, and multiple children.
As for the rest of it, meh.


(And holy fuck, Cthenthar what the fuck? I thought you were never coming back!)

[Module]

Ivan ... where are you getting this from? Women do not have more sexual partners than men ...

Men report having had more sexual partners than women have. Source (http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/08/number-of-sexual-partners-median-v-mean.html) Source (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/959a1AmericanSexSurvey.pdf) Source (http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=401) Source (http://www.sexualityandu.ca/teachers/data-3.aspx) Source (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060217_partners.html)
Regardless, of course, as a number of these links point out, it's logically impossible for men and women to have different average numbers of sexual partners! :D
So apparently women are less inclined to admit the number of partners they've had is as high as it is, and men are more inclined to exaggerate.
Interesting fact for you, there.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why is this in the science and environment forum? There's no scientific content at all (quite the opposite).

Chit-chat maybe?

I'm thinking Discrimination.

Moved

[Black Dagger]

I thought that too - but this thread is more sexist than it is discussing sexism or social discrimination :(

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I thought that too - but this thread is more sexist than it is discussing sexism or social discrimination :(

Well, if Ivan doesn't buck his ideas up, we can always move it to OI.

Thread football!

[Drace]

what's wrong with being promiscuous?

Stupidity is common of them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Stupidity is common of them.

I'm afraid that didn't make sense. Perhaps you could rephrase yourself?

[ev]

I don't really see where the argument is here.

My argument is this, that under a capitalist socioeconomic structure the behavioral characteristics of the individuals deteriorates and they develop more negative traits (not promiscuity i now understand through Darwinism that this is natural behavior) as some negative characteristics or traits in a human is natural, some vice's are 'nurtured' if you will by the capitalist socioeconomic structure.



I think it is also especially evident that the argument presented here contains a very similar type of moralistic social conservatism endemic of capitalism with it's buddy religion in step.

To the contrary, I'm not religious and I think the portion of the argument your referring to to be more social moralistic to the former.



I thought that too - but this thread is more sexist than it is discussing sexism or social discrimination :(

:(I'm very sorry, I do not wish to advocate sexism in anyway. I wanted to point out that through the change in social conditions women are effected, objectified and used. They're the victims as are the men in the capitalist socioeconomic structure but the use of the naturalistic assets of women to do the bidding of the capitalist bourgeoisie is unforgivable and i get rather emotional on such topics.



Ivan ... where are you getting this from? Women do not have more sexual partners than men ...

Men report having had more sexual partners than women have. source source source source
Regardless, of course, as a number of these links point out, it's logically impossible for men and women to have different average numbers of sexual partners! :D
So apparently women are less inclined to admit the number of partners they've had is as high as it is, and men are more inclined to exaggerate.
Interesting fact for you, there.

You're right, thanks for looking that up! :)

[rednordman]

I must be the only person who doesnt see a desire to totally jump on the threat starter like most others have here, infact i believe that some points that they have raised require a little more thought than that of simply getting on the defensive against any progress that the soviet union or other socialist states, may or may not have done on the issue of womens rights and the perception of women in society.
The question over promiscuity is significant in my opinion, because are men/women promiscius simply because of their sexuall urges? or is thier more to it than that? i tend to believe the latter. Sure there is nothing wrong with having many sexual partners, but some people do it to bostler popularity, and or, climb up the latter so to speak (work, career - in isolated occasions - etc). Also is it not egotistical for men or women to boast about their conquests? Ok, this may sound like total bollox to some of you, but it does happen in the real world.
If someone is simply feeling natuarlly promiscius, than that is fine i guess, but if they are sleeping around just so they get noticed, or for their own gain, or to boost social status, than i do not exactly see it as a positive characteristic. And that is nothing to do with religious morals.
Personally I believe that their more likely to be are more positive effect on women in a socialist society over a capitalist one as work and positions/responsibility would be universial and not resigned to one sex (you have to note that even in todays capitalist world women are still expected to refrain from physical jobs because they are deemed not as strong as men).
This may not have happened perfectly in the soviet union, but it had a better attitude than most western countries for ages.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Indeed, there is nothingwrong with promiscuity. The puritan-like overtones of how sexuality is "sacred" is false, and is irrefutably reactionary.


The only real different I can see between these so-called communist and capitalist countries is that, the Soviet Union led the way with some sort of egalitarianism of both binary genders, mainly being composed of some womyn being represented in high positions they previously hadn't.

In a nutshell, I don't see how there is a huge difference here (systematically), especially historically, unless there is some sort of social revolution that deconstructs and transforms the social relations between all genders.

It was far more than women getting a "higher job".

Tsarist Russia put a tight ideological hackle on females by defining that they were owned by their husbands, and even subject to abuse if they insubordinate. The Revolution declared that gender privilege was illegal: free nurseries and kindergartens, along with public dining rooms, freed women from the unpaid labor of domestic servitude; abortion and divorce (former 'irreligious' practices) were officially legalized; and education was free and welfare was more accessible.

This all meant that women made leaps that made 'democratic' (i.e. capitalist-imperialist) countries look stupid.

[Hit The North]

Of course, sex - like everything else in capitalism - is commodified and, naturally, is the most pleasurable and seductive of commodities. A culture of promiscuity helps to sell that commodity.

None of this shit is accidental!

[Yehuda Stern]

To paraphrase Dave Chappelle, sometimes you read something that's so sexist that all you can say is, "damn, that's sexist!" That's what I felt when I read the OP.

[Plagueround]

Women have always been raised with a social responsibility. A responsibility to do all the housework, look after the children, feed the husband

At a certain point a few years back, I felt really bad after realizing that I had passively placed these types of responsibilities on my girlfriend without realizing it. It's something that doesn't even get seen as lopsided and unfair because society is so used to it.
I changed my ways and I now clean, cook, and take care of the kiddo about equally (preferably we do these things together, but it doesn't always work out that way), although she tends to make dinner more during the week because of our schedules.
I think more couples would be a lot happier if they didn't assign these roles to each other and viewed the entire situation as a "team effort".