Radical Feminism (continued from Capitalism)

[ktttn]

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

[1714643380]

1714643380

[1714643380]

1714643380

[1714643380]

1714643380

[Rassah]

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)

[meowmeowbrowncow]

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.

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


Sexism - both ends - sucks.

[phillipsjk]

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.

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'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.

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

It's hypothetical. No, hypothetical is the wrong word. It's just a literary device. There's no organization called SCUM.

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 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. Put another way: you no longer have to present as (a non-terrorist) human in order to participate in the economy.

[ErisDiscordia]

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.

[ktttn]

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.

:::crickets:::


I am shocked at the lack of reply! Shocked I tell you!

I think she's at some conference/hippie gathering or something and might be temporarily out of free wifi range. I think some stray neuron of mine stored this information after reading another thread. (Might be the blocked Capitalism thread).

Obviously gender seems very important to her for some reason.

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.

[ktttn]

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.

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


Sexism - both ends - sucks.

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.

[ktttn]

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?

[ktttn]

A self moderated topic in politics and society. This thread is going places.

This.

What did Kropotkin say about women and feminism, Rampion?

[ktttn]

Matrilinial culture is a culture that does not rely on state issued receipts called birth certificates that determine one's surname.

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

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.

[ErisDiscordia]

It almost sounds like you want revenge. Political systems don't actually have any gender -- the gender analogy is just an analogy -- and you seem to be forgetting that and way over-analysing how the state's stereotypical "fatherliness" is oppressive, just 'cause the state is such an old-fashioned Christian kind of guy who eats lots of meat, hogs the remote, scratches his balls, works full time while the wife stays home to cook and clean...

But of course your thinking isn't ovary-centric at all...

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.

[randomcloud]

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.

[Rassah]

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?

[randomcloud]

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. :/ 

[Rampion]

A self moderated topic in politics and society. This thread is going places.

This.

What did Kropotkin say about women and feminism, Rampion?

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"

[ktttn]

It almost sounds like you want revenge. Political systems don't actually have any gender -- the gender analogy is just an analogy -- and you seem to be forgetting that and way over-analysing how the state's stereotypical "fatherliness" is oppressive, just 'cause the state is such an old-fashioned Christian kind of guy who eats lots of meat, hogs the remote, scratches his balls, works full time while the wife stays home to cook and clean...

But of course your thinking isn't ovary-centric at all...

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.

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.

[ktttn]

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?

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

[ktttn]

A self moderated topic in politics and society. This thread is going places.

This.

What did Kropotkin say about women and feminism, Rampion?

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"

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.

[ktttn]

The job market is just more women friendly, it's easy for a female to find a job.

Let's talk about sex work, shall we?

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?

[TECSHARE]

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

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!