Bitcoin Forum

The following is my theory of gender:
One's gender is neither static nor binary, but a shifting polygon in a matrix, identified by thousands of global subcultures, ie, butch, genderqueer, genderfluid, ciswoman, transwoman, ect.

Matrix- XYZ+ Time
X- Active - Passive
Y- Gendered - Neuter
Z- Androgyne - Hermaphrodite

X is a measure of dominance, a patriarchically male trait.
Y is a measure of visibility of cues.
Z measures the mixture of those cues.

I'm personally influenced by Judith Butler and the SCUM Manifesto and disgusted by the "Men's rights", (or whatever you call it) meme going around these days.

In this thread, I hope to open up a dialogue in the presumably cismale-populated Bitcoin community about issues of rape, sexism, and patriarchy in an anarchist world.

my facebook is a facebook.
I am a facebook.

1/10 made me respond.

These are cultural issues, not political or economic ones. So there is no answer to the question of whether these crimes would be more or less prevalent in anarchy society v.s. statist society, dictatorship society v.s. democratic society, communist society v.s. capitalist society, etc.

This.

TECSHARE used the wrong term. This topic isn't "self moderated," it's "OP moderated." Self moderated would be posters moderating, editing, and deleting their own posts. The "Libertarian and Anarchist" thing to do. OP moderated is that other thing.

Saying "crime" within anarchist frameworks is a terrible habit.
The personal is the political. Seperation of these issues is deadly.
We are talking about an anarchist world here, and the differences in theory between our world- containing more rape, sexism, and patriarchy than one can even measure- and the worlds radical anarchafeminists and the like put forth.

BF Skinner's behaviorism can be helpful here.
Sex is biological- for the most part, which is mainly determined by genetics.
How we rely, ignore, et al. treat it, is what properly determines our gender.

Is this meant to imply that I should unmod myself?
Would that get y'all in the conversation?
No?
Ok. Have a nice day, and remember, if you're afraid you're gonna rape someone- blow your rape whistle.

Matrilinial culture is a culture that does not rely on state issued receipts called birth certificates that determine one's surname.
We can see the nuclear family disintigrating, and we cheer.
Voluntary communities where Fathers do not own their children are in the near future.

Or it could be that due to the sensitivity of the subject matter, I feel it's prudent to shield the thread from the prevalent rape culture.

How do you feel about agency and the relcaiming of queer?

If enough people in a community consider it a crime, it's a crime, regardless of whether there are governments or laws involved. Whether "crime" is the right word to use at that point is just a question of semantics. I don't like to use "immoral," because not everything considered "immoral" is unethical, and just saying "unethical" just doesn't have the same intensity of meaning. If you would prefer some other term for an act that a society, with or without government, considers extremely wrong and requiring restitution, let me know.

Huh? I thought in this country parents decided on a child's name and surname, and the state only recorded the parents' decision?

Conversely, I would rather find out if someone is has a prevalent rape culture, and have people's thoughts on it be in public, just in case there are some creeps I'd rather not associate with.

Deviation is what you mean.
Restorative justice should be presumed, imo.

Ethics carries more weight to me. Semantics can be revealing if treated properly.

That's not untrue at all.
I'm refering to expansive patriarchical norms.

I don't intend on deleting such a post without record and critique of why.

Edit: An example of the sort of garbage I'd delete:
This point of view assumes everything and discovers nothing, painting black and white subjects that extend well beyond the visible electromagnetic spectrum.

Those words as they apply to people don't have static meanings.
I think the world would be a better place with only <non-cismen>.
This is my opinion.
"Transgendered" has a lot of political baggage. To effectively be transgendered, one identifies with a former state being formerly valid. A degree of genderfluidity is implied.
At the same time, somebody one might attempt to call transmen often reject the notion of being anything other than a human.
Even further, some folks reject the notion of identification with human species.

Let's talk about sex work, shall we?

Bump.
Any antifeminists out there want to bitch about how oppressed you are?

Just going to leave this here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCqzd-gYJXE

(BTW, the female voice singing this is done by a guy from Finland)

...where fathers no longer own children (an inept claim), but the mothers own the fathers.


Sexism - both ends - sucks.

Why polygons and not points or clouds? Edit: or polyhedrons, the 3D version of poloygons?

I assume points are out since the matix is a simplification representing many variables.

I reviewed "Gender Gummy" diagrams prior to making this: they exclude the gender- neuter axis, but include a self-expression axis.. Edit: Gender Gummies don't include any of those axis. Your matrix does not mention male vs female at all; unless you are claiming that maleness can be fully explained in terms of dominance.

While I have no good reason to doubt some people have fluid gender identities, I suspect the majority of people have stable gender identies that don't change much over their lifetimes. This would be especially true for people undergoing gender reassignment surgery: "choosing" the wrong gender can be fatal in that case.


I don't think anybody should take the SCUM Manifesto literally. In her biography linked from the version you linked in the other thead:

While a fun read, it appears to be deliberatly self-contradictory in places. The overall premise seems to be:

• Men seem to be in charge of society.
• Society does not cater to women's emotional needs.
• Therefore, men do not have emotional needs.

Society has grown too large for our brains to handle (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html) efficiently (that is like the one and only worthy Cracked article). It is silly to assume that a matriarchy would do any better by more than an order of magnitude. Perhaps there would be fewer wars (which would be great), but even women are not perfect.

The manifesto also calls for the elimination of money (I hate money) and an increase in the use of automation. It is posited that money was invented to discourage automation (by giving men (and women) something mind-numbingly boring to do). In fact, one of the more science-fictiony things that Bitcoin enables is truly autonomous agents (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53855.0). Put another way: you no longer have to present as (a non-terrorist) human in order to participate in the economy.

ktttn could you please state your points in an understandable manner so that we might actually address them, please?

You seem to be bothered by something and have very strong opinions about it, but I can't really figure out what it is.

Actually I'm living out of my backpack in downtown San Antonio, working as an artist.
Gender is a huge part of my life. Bitcoin is about letting wealth redistribute itself, circumventing entrenched and oppressive patriarchal power structures. The oldest form of subjugation is that of women. Men often cite, from removed observation and not experience, that subjugation of that sort has ended or tapered off.
The nuclear family as the basis for the structure of the lives of the people who run LLCs and the like should be criticized. The state and its conjoined twin capitalism are in fact the root problem that an alternative currency and seperatist economy seek to tackle and abolish.
Id like to use this thread to discuss how a decentralized economic society will react to notions of manhood and mysogyny. I'd like to discuss and bring to light how the hypocritical antifeminist stance of reactionary, statusquo maintaining bullshit is as harmful as banking, knavery, government control and other forms of domination of opressed classes.

The idea that one needs to think of "both ends" is quite absurd. Its plain to see that throughout eurocentric history, women have never dominated and subjugated men to any degree remotely comparable to what is still today the norm of phallocentric thinking.
When we speak of ineptitude, the idea that sexism is not directed at "the weaker sex" takes the cake for ineptness.

Those who cannot differentiate between matrilineal and patriarchal should understand that they have the privelige of making inept claims.
The inevitible isolated series of examples of women abusing men can never equal the everyday experience of all women's oppression by men.
Centralizing power in the hands of men is insane, as I'm sure we all agree. Unwittingly, when one buys the line that feminists are incorrect, one maintains the centralization of power.
What objections to feminism can one have?

What did Kropotkin say about women and feminism, Rampion?

The parents are not equal in the eyes of the state-despite what laws and rights it may prop up.
The practice of Taking the father and husband's name, very literally, began with abject slavery.

Pretty much sums up what I think about all this. I actually agree with some of the points he/she/it (don't want to be chauvinistic!) is making about our culture being male-dominated in certain ways, as well as society in general being patriarchal and having a history of subjugating women. But as you said, I don't get the vibe of "let's treat each other fairly and as equals" at all. Seems more like he/she/it would cut off any mans balls, just because women once weren't allowed to vote or something and would quickly in turn oppress men because it would be just fair that way.

It's impossible to have a mature discussion on sexism, et al on the internet.

I'm bored, so I'll pontificate on the subject:

There is a lot of bitterness, anger, resentment and outright fear between straight men and straight women that makes it impossible for any progress to be made.

The majority of it comes from men who deep down inside still hold on to sexist views, expect people to fulfill certain roles because of their gender, and are angry and frustrated when they meet people who do not fit the stereotypes they expect everyone to fall into. This is why they're resentful toward women: they expect women to do certain things for them and when women don't, it angers them. Because it's kind of socially unacceptable to openly express their anger at women, they turn their feelings inward where they manifest into this bitterness that bubbles within them and rots into a hateful contempt of women.

I think feminists are wasting their time trying to convince sexist men that what they're doing is wrong because it isn't about the truth for these people, it's all about them, and they see argumentation and debate as a means to dominate others. It's their way of punching people in the face over the internet. So when you explain something to them, they think *you're* punching *them* in the face.

That's why they feel so victimized when the subject's brought up, they perceive talk of sexism as an attack on all men (and therefore themselves). It's also why when the subject is brought up they jump to personal attacks, denial and attempt to dismiss the speaker in any way they can -- they're not out to listen to facts or the truth, they're literally trying to win a fistfight over the internet.

They typically win too, because the feminist women who they argue with have big ego problems of their own that sexist men know how to exploit.
The language and terminology they use is unfathomable and incomprehensible to the average person and belies an overly-academic ivory tower mentality perceived as completely divorced from reality. It's the reason why people typically deny and dismiss the claims of feminist women. Whenever the subject comes up it always devolves into meaningless conspiratorial bullshit where feminists will spin minor quirks in American society into evidence of sexism, instead of talking about the real, overt, obvious problems that women still face today. They'll also bring up books and authors average Americans (and sexist men) have never even heard of, leaving the people they're trying to convince out of the loop. Instead of focusing on what's really important, feminist women will also try to argue with sexist men and try to use the men's statements to prove to the men that they are, in fact sexist, and they don't see that those clowns don't care and are manipulating them.

Tl;dr sexist men are using PR tactics against feminists and feminists have their heads shoved too far up their own asses to see that. So there's really no point in even trying to discuss it with others on a rational level. Feminists would succeed a lot more if they learned to argue the way the sexist men do, and also took a page or two from other civil rights movements that have successfully discredited, smeared and shut their opponents out from the debate. And sexist men would do well to rein in the behavior of their own gender before demanding that women do the same.

That's just my two cents.

I'm wondering, how much of this problem is due to misogynistic men oppressing women, and how much is it just culture that women themselves adopt from a young age? Why are young girls skittish, afraid of ikky crawly things, play with dolls, gossip, shriek, etc, and then grow up mostly uninterested in "manly" things like maths, sciences, engineering, banking, and other hard science type things? I mean, I know there are tons of women in the science, architecture, accounting, engineering, and business fields, but it seems there are very very few of them compared to the men. And I'm not even talking about out in the workplace where they may be oppressed and pushed out. Just go to any science or business conference where anyone is free to attend, and it's mostly men. Go to a software development or finance conference, and it's almost entirely men. Heck, go to any university class with any of those subjects, and although you'll see some female students, most of the class will also be men. It's like they have no interest to even try for any of those fields. Why?

Who the hell knows.

EDIT: I don't buy that it has anything to do with any innate traits associated with gender however. For one thing that doesn't explain transgendered people or the gay community. What about cultures with three recognized genders? What do their kids become when they grow up?

I wish everybody would consider that maybe, just maybe, people are individuals who are shoe-horned into specific stereotypes based on physical sex. :/ 

Hehehe, I missed that question...

Kropotkin specifically didn't wrote about women and feminism AFAIK, but very generally the first anarchists shared the marxist view on females. Marxist basically thought that female subordination was definitely not a result of some kind of biological bias, but a fruit of patriarchal social relations in which men consider women as their private property, and they basically said that "owning the females" was a way to preserve exclusive access to certain social classes. And that's why chastity and fidelity are rewarded, etc.

More specifically, anarchists are against any type of hierarchical relationship (and this is why they are AGAINST capitalism, something many US folks don't understand because they are poisoned by the joke interpretation of anarchism by Rothbard), so strong female characters & feminist movements developed in anarchist society (they did in the only medium sized and mid term experiment, Aragón in Spain between 1930 and 1938). Eliminating patriarchal dominance was a very important goal in the fight against the state. As a small example, you US folks may be familiar with Emma Goldman, which pretty much sums up the anarchist feminism: they supported free love, they were anti-marriage, they hated puritanism and "female morality", and they considered themselves totally equal to men: thus they were hard workers, obviously they didn't expect any man to "provide", and they were in the front lines of the anarchy army during the spanish anarchist revolution.

I would add that for both anarchists and communists "feminism" was a bourgeois concept, and they obviously hated the "suffragism" that was defended by liberal feminists.

Alexandra Kollontai said in the early 1900's: "For what reason, then, should the woman worker seek a union with the bourgeois feminists? Who, in actual fact, would stand to gain in the event of such an alliance? Certainly not the woman worker"

http://www.museodelaciudad.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/exhibiciones-temporarias/ciudad-libertaria-16.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8t0VAFfcUWLMuVbf1zDXDJ6dgSDUVQ9snl1vCsEZsZZnszNf0

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9M40rBXPz05pkMJBpYccHs4Fx9ix5Lg8ulOVI3c1MDu8vVv576Q

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_79E0EmitYck/TNZR9zxv2rI/AAAAAAAAKio/Badh2dGwV5c/s400/1.6.+Tierra+y+Libertad.+Dos+mujeres+leen+el+diario+socialista+anarquista+Soliradidad+Obrera.jpg

http://sp9.fotolog.com/photo/57/10/71/mujer_anarquista/1209608588_f.jpg

http://pictures2.todocoleccion.net/tc/2009/12/29/16662510.jpg

She. No '/' needed.
I'm nonviolent,.however- the balls of habitual rapists might get cut off (not to mention other mutilation or killing) as a matter of course. Is this unjust? I won'be the one with the scalpel. The idea that people can be equals is a quantative question. People are not quantities.
I'm sure men, deep down know that they are in no danger of being oppressed by those they have oppressed since the dawn of history, but they certainly fear the prospect.

When a newborn is legally and medically (usually according to a man) determined to be female, that sets in motion many things as far as training, expectation, exposure to norms and the like. Escaping this masculist insanity is neccessary for women to ever amount to more than a class of slaves

In Chapter 10 of The Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin devotes a full section to the liberation of women via machines. He limits his descriptions to household appliances, but a clear inference can be made to extend this liberation to all spheres, excluding the futility of state participation. He describes women as "that drudge of humanity". I find this to be telling- less of Kropotkin's sexism, but more of the ubiquitous mysogyny commonplace both then and now.

How many here are, perhaps subtley, rapists? How many here and anywhere give a damn about consent of any kind?
How far does concern for consent extend?
Is it really possible to override consent with wages?

So by anti-feminist you mean any person who has been oppressed and also is the owner of a penis? It seems to me you are more interested in metering out your own form of self justified oppression rather than striving for equality, the true goal of actual feminists. I think the word you are looking for is anti-misandrist, because that is what you clearly do - attempt to subjugate people based only on the fact that they have a penis. Individuals be damned! PENIS = EVIL!

Sure, you are right, I totally forgot that, I now remember that he somehow predicted the introduction of washing machines, dishwashers and the likes, but in any case he did not develop a deep theory about sexism, he is pretty much in the same line of thought outlined by Engels in "The Origin of Family, Private Property and State".

Whomever makes it in time to see my post : ignore button is a great tool/indicator , do not forget to use it at certain times. :) ciao

hmmm I keep wondering how you came to the conclusion that capitalism comes with hierarchical structures attached to it. Would you mind to elaborate, please?

ktttn: I find myself more and more confused by your way of putting things. On the one hand I agree with a lot of what you say. While I'm not putting it into a blatant male/female dichotomy, I'd like to see each individual recognized for what he/she is - an individual. This means not judging him by identifying the individual with imaginary groups and letting her/him express him/herself freely and without coercion. I find that by focusing on the matter of sex exclusively, you're bound by the same chains you try fighting against. There are other ways and categories by which people are being subjugated and oppressed.

With that being said, your style of writing comes over as unbelievably arrogant and hateful, to the point that I actually feel the urge to argue against what you say (even though I should probably argue against how you say it) even though I agree for the most part. I simply can not imagine that you will effect any sort of positive change, or change any persons mind even a little in this way. So I ask you: what is your purpose? Is it to spread enlightened liberating ideas among people and educate them? Or to justify your outrage by pointing out and screaming at all the perceived sexist injustices you see everywhere? Or maybe something else entirely?

Please keep in mind that I am actually trying to be helpful.

Don't have the time to elaborate now, I already tried to explain it thoroughly in the many pages of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160726.0

The very simple answer is that in a capitalist system a vast portion of the population is dependent for its living upon the selling of their labour, which results in wage slavery and private hierarchy. Anarchism is a vital philosophy that not only touches politics but also economics, in the Rothbardian interpretation the "no-ruler" characteristic of anarchism is only relevant for "government rulers", while the "private ruler" is acceptable (e.g.: your "boss", the one telling you what to do in order for you to be able to survive thanks to the wage he is paying you). For a classic anarchist no ruler is acceptable, private or public.

TL;DR -> in a capitalist society, the wealthier de facto rules, thus the "no-ruler" principle is impossible. It can be argued that a very primitive form of "anarcho-capitalism" already took place in the middle ages, and those where hierarchic societies (in fact many Rothbardian followers present the Medieval Iceland (https://mises.org/daily/1121) society as an example of anarcho-capitalism. They like this example because Medieval Iceland was relatively peaceful, but still it was a highly hierarchic society where the minority of wealthier decided the fate of the majority of poorer. The funding principle is "you can have justice if you have the resources to pay for it") ,

I'll try to elaborate more later on.

Thanks for your reply Rampion, it certainly gives food for thought.

I find myself going back and forth on this issue. I think the very word "capitalism" is at the root of a lot of confusion. It's been used and abused and changed its meaning many times so that I find when I hear people talking about "capitalism" most everyone has something a bit different in mind. Even though etymologically speaking it should be quite clear - capitalism is any system of thought putting the concept of "capital" at its core. Which makes me wonder: how can we organize ourselves in a peaceful way without the concept of capital?

I've read your post which you've linked to and to be honest, I still don't quite see how the very concept of capital is in its essence coercive. Maybe I should read the recommended books you've mentioned first? Anyway I won't argue that having capital doesn't give you power, it clearly does. But I'm torn on whether it's any sort of coercive power. After all as the owner of some capital you can offer it to people in return for other stuff you desire and they are free to decline your offer and you can't do anything about it. Well, maybe hire some thugs with your capital and extract it from them anyway. It's when people are dependent on acquiring capital in order to be able to get stuff needed for survival I can see how the power to withhold capital could be viewed as coercive. In other words, as long as there are other alternatives for providing a living besides acquiring a single form of capital I don't see a problem with that. Would you view Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies for example as incompatible with anarchist thought, because they represent a form of capital? I personally wouldn't, because to me anarchy (going back to etymology here) means "no ruler" which doesn't necessarily have to be a person or a group, but a single universal system which everyone is forced to follow. People often accuse anarchists as being "against any rules whatsoever" which I find silly, considering how hooked people seem to be on creating rules all the time. My personal anarchist philosophy just argues against the existence of a single universal system of rules being forced on everybody. I have no problem with several competing/complementary systems of rules or several competing forms of capital for that matter. I argue for this on grounds of efficiency (don't care much for the "moral argument") and aesthetic style (you can laugh now :D).

Well I guess I'll read some of those books and come back to this topic later, because I still haven't quite decided on what to think about it.

I can think of only three ways of survival:

1) Trade your labor to someone who is an expert on how to use it most efficiently, in exchange for things needed for survival (work for a boss).
2) Apply your own labor to acquire things you need to survive yourself (grow/hunt your own food, or run your own business).
3) Steal or live off of other's labor without contributing anything in return.


#2 typically requires a lot more work than #3, either because you are not an expert in all the things you require to survive (may be a good farmer, but suck at building houses), and/or because more people working on the same problem is typically more efficient that a single person working on it by themselves.

#1 is essentially capitalism, where you trade your skill for someone else's capital. #2 is capitalism only if what you produce you end up trading for something else. If all you do in #2 is build your own shelter and grow your own food, that's not capitalism.

#3 isn't capitalism at all. It's either theft or parasitism.

So, am I missing any other means of survival? And if not, which of those do you propose we use?

The founders of anarchism were basically for two types of non-capitalist economy: Mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)), which is a kind of anti-capitalist free market (Proudhon) and anarchist collectivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism) (Bakunin).

Other "sub-genres" of collectivist anarchism are a) libertarian communism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism) (Kropotkin) and especially b) anarcho-syndicalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism), which we could say that is the most structured, practical and systematic way of organizing economy in a collectivist anarchic society, and the only that was "empyrically tested" (Rudolf Rocker, Diego Abad de Santillán, etc).

The collectivist criticized the mutualist, but they always cooperated as the very strong and basic common point was a fierce anti-capitalsm and anti-totalitarism.

The only mid-sized experience of an anarchist society (Aragon and Catalonia, Spain 1930-1938) had an economy based on collectivist anarchism strongly influenced by the CNT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#The_rise_of_the_CNT), and thus basically anarcho-syndicalist (BTW, Chomsky is a big fan of anarcho-syndicalism). This spanish experience worked extremely well until it was crushed by the collusion of state communists of the KPSS and the fascists. Nevertheless, the sample is relatively small (it was a community of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, but not millions) and the timeframe quite short (only 7/8 years).

How is Anarcho-Syndicalism any different from Anarcho-Capitalism, which allows for formation of unions and syndicates? Are labor unions not allowed to compete for employment by capitalists under anarcho-syndicalism? Or do capitalists, i.e. people who have a vision and wish to hire a lot of workers to see their idea become reality, just aren't allowed to exist under anarcho-syndicalism?

Anarcho-Syndicalism is anti-capitalist, which simply means that there is no private ownership of the means of production.

Anarcho-syndicalism and what Rothbard called "Anarcho-capitalism" are in opposite sides of the spectrum.


Anarchism is a revolutionary doctrine that advocates for the abolition of both the state and the private ownership of the means of production. Workers self-manage and control the means of production in an horizontal, non-hierarchic way. No state and no bosses.

The above is not true for the Rothbardian, capitalist interpretation of anarchism, which advocates for the abolition of the state only, while maintaining the private ownership of the means of production. From an historic point of view, "anarcho-capitalism" is pretty much an oxymoron, two words that cannot go together. For the original anarchists, in order to reach the people's liberation abolishing capitalism was as necessary as abolishing the state.

Sounds like an extremely inefficient system. So what does one do if he wants to build or make something, and needs specialists for the job?

Do I understand this correctly when I say "anarchism can not maintain private ownership of the means of production because property rights can only be enforced by government"? So is there no way of having the concept of "property" around without the state to define and enforce it? Not sure if I'm willing to embrace this idea, since property seems to be a concept to me and concepts are workable whenever they're shared by people via their cultural operating system.

If you are interested in the practical aspects of work organization in collectivist anarchism and specifically in anarcho-syndicalism I recommend you Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practice (http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker), by Rudolph Rocker.

The system was tried and was efficient. Main principles: self-management, direct worker control, integration of agriculture, industry, service and personal participation in self-management.

Quoting Chomsky:


Answering to your question, if a community needs specialists to build something (for example, a water depuration plant), they would just take the decision horizontally and do the work. Each community would interact with others through local assemblies federated regionally, and this way they would coordinate complex work that required highly specialized workers.

In the practical example of the Spanish experience, the anarchist community was roughly 200k to 300k inhabitants in Aragón and 1,000k in Catalonia, and they could pretty much cover their needs internally as those were highly industrialized regions. When they didn't, they just interacted with the Republican Government and other non-anarchist groups on a free association basis.

I will quote something I wrote in another thread and that may anticipate more questions:


*The Mutual Aid (Kropotkin)

Not really, property rights can also be enforced by individuals (as in the middle ages), but its true that for anarchists modern governments are only a construction in order to defend the privileges and the property rights acquired by the capitalists. Thus, in a capitalist society "the wealthier ruler", and modern states are just a tool of the wealthier (practical example: who do you think rules America? Obama, or the economical powers behind him?)

To understand all this you should read:

The Capital, by Karl Marx, which is the work in which the meaning of capitalism was defined. Not having read this work and discussing politics (and specifically capitalism) is nonsense.
What is the private property? By Proudhon

Now let me add a point I made in the past and that I think its relevant to bring up when discussing with US folks that basically never thought of even discussing the legitimacy of the capitalist system and thus private ownership of means of production:

To me it seems quite obvious that the office of president is for show only and the real decisions get made "behind the throne" so to speak. Similarly I view government in todays form as not much more than a tool by which to legitimize and enforce the agenda of people with deep enough pockets and good enough connections to influence the direction government is taking. This is why I keep laughing at people who want the government to "do something" about banks run amok and transnational companies exploiting the hell out of everybody. It can't and it won't because they are the masters of government, not the other way round.


By the way I am not from the US I am from a country which has found itself on the socialist side of the iron curtain. Your assessment of property = freedom for US intellectuals is probably accurate (don't know, never been to the US) and property = slavery might express the viewpoint of many a western European intellectual. But in the former east block countries the situation is somewhat different in my experience. During socialist times property still existed, but the ideological tendency was to malign it and fight against it. Or to be clear, fight against private property. Of course there was government owned property. Thus for people in this area the ideological tension doesn't seem to be between property & no property or maybe statism & anarchism but between private property and public property. This is why they keep believing in the (in my mind illusory and misleading) political division of "left wing" and "right wing". They see one as advocating more public property and the other advocating more private property. With this philosophical framework established I think it's easy to see why people fail to think about the concept of "no property" and why my particular flavor of anarchism allows for the existence of property as well. Being a disciple of the Godess of Chaos, this opinion is of course subject to change and revision. Us Discordians don't believe in dogma - we prefer catmas (temporary relative meta-beliefs) :) I'm going to read up on some of the stuff you've recommended. It's been a while since I read any political philosophy - I've been on a sci-fi reading binge for the last 2-3 years :D

I think Proudhon may be getting a bit outdated, in the same way that some really really old dude's rants against kings and monarchs isn't really relevant to our present economic situation. Sure, there are still a lot of old capitalists who own their vast wealth thanks to force, that there are more and more new capitalists that earned it through just capitalism. Examples of such capitalist ventures that are the new super-wealthy that didn't use force are Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and even Microsoft and WalMart. All their wealth came from innovation, and people wanting to give them money in exchange for their products.

By the way, Chomsky's anarchists don't sound all that different from anarcho-capitalists. It all only depends on whether those organic units/communities would freely give up all their belongings freely to any passerby who asks for them, or whether they should protect them and give them up to other communities in trade.

Sorry Rassah, but you lack fundamental knowledge on the matter (no offense intended). In anarchist philosophy there's no "giving all your belonging freely to any passerby", that's charity, which is a christian concept abhorred by anarchists.

First, one thing is personal property (your clothes; your furniture; etc.) and a very different thing is private property (which refers only to the means of production: the land; the factory; etc.).

Secondly, most forms of anarchism are not against the existence of free market (except for anarcho-communism), they are against capitalist free market.

Thirdly, anarcho-chapitalist don't accept state hierarchy but accept private hierarchy as the natural state of things. I'll put it silly simple: an anti capitalist anarchist would never accept to be a boss, nor to have a boss. For a collectivist anarchist self-control of the proceeds of his work is fundamental for his liberation as an individual. In collectivist anarchism the workers themselves would decide what to produce, how to produce it, and wether to trade those proceeds or not. For an anarcho-capitalist it's ok to rent his labour at market price (something that for a collectivist anarchist would mean "voluntary slavery"), as long as that its the most profitable option for him. It's basically a very different philosophical approach on what freedom means, and which do you think is the natural way to manage your own time and work.

I'l quote again Chomsky just because, while it can be criticized in many things, he is incredibly clear in his exposition, and he is a character with which US folks should be familiarized with:


Chomsky is quite the prototypical marxist, thus he thinks that capitalism alienates that creative urge intrinsic to human nature he mentions above. Anarchists and other marxist influenced thinkers believe that labour is a fundamental aspect of individual freedom, and this aspect shapes society as a whole. For a marxist, a worker developing his labour in a privately owned system is alienated from his own humanity, becoming a tool for others.

In a nutshell Marx's Theory of Alienation is the contention that under capitalist conditions workers will inevitably lose control of their lives by losing control over their work.

This "theory of alienation" is one of the cardinal points of The Capital, and Marx thoroughly describes 4 differents types of alienation that happen in a capitalist society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation#Types_of_alienation). Understanding those points is crucial to understand past and modern critics to the capitalist system.

BTW, if you'd like to have a "soft and easy", "american" and modern first approach to collectivist anarchism you could start with this: http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1458787435.

Bravo, I like Chomsky and Marx. Herbert Marcuse, Georg Lucács and of course the background influence to all these guys: G. W. F. Hegel had all good criticism about capitalism.

Heureka! This seems to be the piece of the puzzle I have been looking for. Now what you are saying is making much more sense to me than before!

Firstly, thanks for finally posting something somewhat on topis
Secondly , the contents of your pants has as much to do with accepting that the undeniable sweeping waves of abuse women (specifically) have gone through at the hads of self absorbed.men is real. It's propped up by the inane notion of "equality." "Equality" is a myth. I want to end rape culture.

"Subjugate people based only on the fact that they have a penis."
This is trolling of the least admirable sort. That subjugation- rare as it is, only happens when Men try to stick their dicks where they aren't welcome or needed.

By anti feminist, I mean anyone unwilling to empathize with the construct of reality, as viewed by "the weaker sex."

So since we are on the topis, you are saying men can not be subjugated? You seem to be only repeating yourself rather than elaborating on your point. Since you don't believe in the possibility of equality, wouldn't that make you a supremacist?

When you say you want to end rape culture, are you implying that our culture tolerates, if not encourages rape? Or, are you trying to eliminate rapists as a cultural group? (I suspect the former)

When I heard about a recent high-profile gang rape case (http://in.news.yahoo.com/girl-gang-raped-moving-bus-041818692.html) I had a sinking feeling that it only made the International news because the boyfriend was also attacked. This implies that she was not alone, and presumably was dressed modestly, not showing unusual interest in other men. In short, victim blaming is not possible in that case: the victim did everything right.

Sort of refuting my point, I found a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20907755) about high-profile cases in India. that story does not mention the boyfriend at all.

Re-responding for the lulz. Troll.
Owning a penis is as simple as a trip to your local sex shop, geneticist, online store, or woods where you can gather a stick, widdle and sand it (hopefully) and attach it to your crotch with some vines, ect.
You are not in a position to determine "the true goal of actual feminists." Equality is a meaningless buzzword. Equality amounts to erasure. I am not attempting to erase women, but bring about understanding of the developed injustice that has grown around women.
Misandrist is also a meaningless and reactionary buzzword, used exclusively to discredit and confound feminists.
Also, next time you typo I'll find it and I'll hound you to the grave about it.

The usual formula (victim blaming) doesn't fit here.
Singling rapists out as a cultural group, instead of a systemic impulse implies that rape is not a symptom of a larger disease.

why do my posts keep getting erased?  >:(

Troll.
Untroll yourself. Read the thread.

The only cure against radical feminism is polygamy.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c9/Big-love-cast14.jpg/290px-Big-love-cast14.jpg

http://www.votepolygamy.com/

because no woman has ever raped a man right?

i had an asshole female boss once. i assumed she was feminist because she was always nice to the female employees. that didn't make me hate all females though.

i believe many feminists nowadays are just misandrysts (man haters) and it really undermines the feminist movement.  i believe if a woman is for equality, then feminism is not necessary. if a guy is an asshole to you, don't pigeonhole all men as misogynists, because theres assholes in both sexes.

i know in some countries such as in the middle east, women are still very oppressed, and feminism is needed in those places. but in america, for a feminist 
to say that "its a mans world" feels insulting. example: americas family courts are totally biased in the woman's favor as the mother usually gets custody or most custody of a child.
women also are able to get away with a lot more; maybe sweet talk their way out of a speeding ticket, etc.  Guys- when was the last time a woman bought you a beer at the bar?

i dont condone violence, but if women want to be treated the same as men, does that mean a man can get into a fist fight with a woman without impunity?

Men get raped, and women can do it. It's missing the point however to make rules based on exceptions. To focus on this is to lose focus on the worldwide (including the first world) nature of rape, which is men raping women.
Misandry is a cop out word with no real meaning when considering currents of sociological practice.
Whether you're in the middle east or not, women are at a disadvantage- often being seen as your most american of consumer goods and nothing more, whether subconsciously or explicitly.
Child custody hearing statistics are irrelevent when you consider that men often feel that children are women's problem. I say good riddance to fathers.

In what ethical reality would anyone punch anyone with impunity? How is this a rubric fro equality? Why is equality even valuable?

Equality is for numbers. We're talking about classes of people, not numbers. The original feminists and feminists since have not put their ultimate goal up to be equality. Equality is erasure- a meaningless placeholder for a goal. This misunderstanding is harmful. The purpose of feminism is to make women's issues- numerous as they are- relevant to all discussions of liberation and justice. While the right to vote is ultimately in vain, pandering to state control, the conception that women are people at all was a radical notion that could have only reached mainstream acceptance after popular legislation regarding voting passed within that social-historical context.
No golf handicap- just understanding of the unique and complex position women are in. No free pass- just a revocation of (see earlier clarification of the term "man") men's free pass on women's bodies and minds.

I'm not begging authority. Nobody worth listening to is doing so, either. I'm making men aware of the fact that they've been carefully trained to hate and use women.
Any author who is a member of an oppressed class can firstly rethink the meaning of success, and secondly thank those who came before her.
In the total absence of the core ideas of feminism, no feminine voice could ever amount to more than that which is possessed by a husband or father.
One reason that Feminism and Anarchism fit together is that feminism has been more of a social call than a political one.

Feminism began slowly as polygamy was prohibited.
Many womans have a different thinking than mans and can be understood only by other womans.
In countries where polygamy is official this can be solved and they feel themselves well if they are other womans also in the family.
In countries where they was robbed from the right to live together with other womans in a marriage with a single man it caused frustration and hate in their heart against the society and they search only the company of other womans.
For me there is no need personally for polygamy but the society needs this as balance and cure against feminism.
Fact is that where is polygamy there is no feminism(especially there is no radical feminism).
So if they would receive back this traditional right to live in polygamy they would cool down surely.

I don't think that at all.
There is roughly a 50/50 ratio of men and women.
With polygamy someone is getting the short end of the stick, unless its a war mongering society in which men die more often.
What we should is defend regular marriage.
Which is hard because apparently neither side seems to like it a whole lot.

Marriage is and has always been a semi-consensual for of sexual and social slavery. Love, cherish and Obey? Polygamy as referenced is simply a way for one man to have multiple wife-slaves. This isn't acceptable, and will not continue uncritiqued.

The only cure for feminist concerns is the abolition of the state and the masculine supremacist structures that prop it up- commodification of the feminine, the idea of owning (to whatever extreme) a person, and the end of denial on the part of men that men, in fact constitute the vast, vast, vast majority of rapists and abusers. Is it not true that children assigned an "M" on their birth certificate at birth too often get trained by virtually everyone they come accross to hurt women, and people in general? Is this not true? Am I missing something here? I strongly doubt it.
A return to community-centered matrileneal family structures, a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters, and most urgently and abrupt end to this reactionary and apologist "I'm calling misandry" foolishness men have recently started howling about in response to being called out must happen first here and there with us in this thread and them who we affect and next everywhere from all angles.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that misogyny and misandry are not social equals, either in frequency of occurrence and  severity of consequences to those it affects.

No its an agreement between partners to raise children mostly. Also enjoy your cats for companions after you get older.
Since when have communities been matrileneal?
[/quote]
a dismantling of consumer culture and the objectification it fosters
[/quote]
Fine you can start by not having 20 pairs of shoes.

I have two pairs of shoes and they were both gifts.
YOU can start by not continuing demeaning stereotypes.

Communities are matrileneal by default assuming there aren't any "I own you and your children"- type Men around.
Think about it. When someone is born, the mother is known. The father isn't necessarily known. Patrilenality is rather inefficient and unnatural- just think of the trouble with surnames.

Marriage without children is still marriage. It was invented for men to gain exclusive possession over women, and (admit it) is still used for the same purpose, despite whatever fluff has grown around it.

The lack of community isn't because of men.
Its because you probably live in a city.
Cities have too many people to be communities.
Also communities are more boring and filled with rules.

I ask you in all seriousness. Who built cities? Women? No. Men built cities, and gave their wives no choice but to raise their kids. They did this personally and through establishing cultural norms.

Wow I didn't know a man had to do was tell a woman to do something, and she has no other choice but to comply. Our evil powers have no limits.

Not "a man." Generations upon generations of men- all trained by other men to think of women as things.

Women don't like farms.
They like cities where they can go to the mall and go to da club where they can get hammered #yolo

I don't get where the removal of free will comes in. Even assuming your premise is true, how does training men remove the free will of women? Do you even think about this stuff before you speak, or are you just repeating what you've been told to believe?

If you're born with guy parts you're a guy if you're born with lady parts you are a lady...


until proven otherwise.

Unfortunately this can not generally be proven until after death (by examining brain tissue (http://www.doctorhugo.org/brain4.html)). You kind of have to take their word for it. Your clear-cut criteria also ignores inter-sex people.