Let’s come up with the next big revolutionary world political/economic theory.

20 Sep

OK, maybe that’s a bit much to ask. Still, there’ve been some discussions going on in comments lately regarding what the goal of radical feminism is. What kind of world might come into existence should all of our wishes come true? I’m too busy these days reading other people’s social, economic, and political theories to come up with any of my own (though I think about it a lot), but I’d still like to discuss the various economic/political -isms and how they relate to the most important -ism of all (feminism), and I’d like to hear about whatever ideas people may have as to what the goal ought to be.

We know what’s wrong with the world (male supremacy, racism, class hierarchies, waste, war, Seth Rogen movies, the fact that we’ll never really know who is America’s best dance crew, etc.), but what’s right? In what kind of world would women be liberated from male supremacy? What would it take to put an end to rape, abuse, dehumanization, etc.? How do we get there? Will it require large-scale revolution? Or is it enough just to try to change people’s attitudes and improve our lot within the current system? If that’s enough, how do we best accomplish that? If it’s not, what actions should we be taking? Do we have to get violent? If we do, will we have lost the plot? Is it necessary for a bunch of people to die in the course of a wholesale reorganization of human society? Who will those people be? Who gets to participate in the revolution? Is separatism a viable option? What about the women whose needs it can’t address?

And after the revolution, then what? What’s feasible? Is a global cooperative the desired outcome? Or should we be looking toward creating small communities? If the latter is desirable, then what happens to our current infrastructure and world system, as fucked as it is? How do we provide for ourselves and make the most efficient use of the world’s resources? If the former is desirable, do you think it’s possible, given the language and cultural differences at play?

And, saying we’ve managed to overthrow all hierarchies, then what? How would we prevent the replacement of old hierarchies with new ones?

How do the Internet and the modern media affect the development and effectiveness of radical social movements? Does it make us lazier than radicals in the past? Less engaged or more? Are we too weighted with the debris of consumerism and stupid entertainment to put anything serious together? Does the pace of contemporary life militate against the development of radical social movements? Does the social trend toward anti-intellectualism mean educated (self or otherwise) radicals will end up isolated and silenced? Don’t we need people to take responsibility for theorizing an improved world in order to move forward (not that I’m saying no one is)?

Feel free to address any one or any combination of these questions or to pose your own. And to use one of my questions as the basis for your PhD thesis.

This discussion is absolutely not open to non-feminists.

Bookmark and Share

93 Responses to “Let’s come up with the next big revolutionary world political/economic theory.”

  1. Selz September 20, 2009 at 11:55 PM #

    Is this a recognition that Marxism, in its traditional form, is a flawed political/economic theory? If so, then what is wrong with it?

    • Nine Deuce September 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM #

      Marxism is an incomplete theory.

  2. Selz September 21, 2009 at 12:24 AM #

    In what way is it incomplete? Is it incomplete in its original goals, or is the main “problem” with Marxism is that it hasn’t been implemented fully yet? Most Marxists would say that it is a form of social organization that hasn’t truly been implemented in the world yet.

    I’m curious, would your next big theory be a departure from Marxism, or would it be a modification to it?

    I hope you don’t mind if I play the devil’s advocate. It seems to me that if Marxism is a legitimate idea (albeit incomplete), yet hasn’t been realized yet in the 150+ years of its existence, what hope is there for an even more rigorous social program to take fruition in the world?

    • Nine Deuce September 21, 2009 at 1:04 AM #

      I don’t think it’s complete because I think Marx failed to offer a realistic model for the state. It hasn’t been implemented, sure, because doing so hasn’t been feasible anywhere. Maybe that’s because the teleology of socio-economic structures in the theory is too rigid to be practical in a world made up of societies with such different structures, or maybe it’s because there’s a flaw in the theory. In any case, I’m not beholden to any economic theory. I’m starting this discussion because I’ve been thinking for years about what a new grand theory might look like, not how we can modify some existing one.

      • James October 2, 2009 at 5:01 PM #

        Most Marxists would say that it is a form of social organization that hasn’t truly been implemented in the world yet.

        Marxism isn’t meant to be “a form of social organization”. It’s meant to be an approach to social science. It’s a means of understanding, not an intended outcome. Calling it a variety of social organisation is a bit like calling Functionalism a social structure. It isn’t, it’s a way of trying to understand society as it already exists.

        Socialism & Communism, however, are forms of social organization, & are ones which almost every Marxist advocate. I’m sorry if this makes me sound hugely pedantic.

  3. polly styrene September 21, 2009 at 9:41 AM #

    Flipping eck ND, wouldn’t it be simpler to start with the meaning of life?

    Ok in strictly practical terms any system aimed at improving women’s lot is meaningless unless it is also aimed at equalising the distribution of resources worldwide. Without wishing to sound like a classic male troll, there is no point in a female banker being paid the exact same multi million pound bonus as a male banker, and calling that equality, if said female banker consumes goods manufactured by women in the third world being paid about a millionth of what she earns in much less savoury conditions.

    Er.That’s it. How this state is to come about I have no idea, but that has to be the starting point. However the workers controlling the means of production would be good. Which can be secured by encouraging worker’s co-operatives. There’s no reason why a classic pattern of centralised services couldn’t exist alongside said workers co-operatives. But the key is income distribution. And a genuine change in social attitudes.

    Within western nations alone, we should start with much better income redistribution, and basic social provision of housing, healthcare and decent food.

    I know that’s hardly the unified field theory, but I believe racism and misogyny are hopelessly intertwined with capitalism, and we need to tackle the capitalism first.

    • Nine Deuce September 21, 2009 at 8:47 PM #

      I’m with you on that for certain.

    • mcol October 6, 2009 at 4:27 AM #

      Agreed, whole-heartedly.

  4. maria September 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM #

    If society collapsed and had to be rebuilt, an important change would be capping wealth. The writers of the constitution believed resources were infinite, and seriously underestimated people’s greed…a fatal flaw. <–this is not my main point, which is below.

    I think you can find a lot of those answers through radical feminism, and well, I avoid those abundance of questions… it brings to mind the advice of many of my teachers: stop overthinking things. It's true in a lot of senses, not just with test anxiety… think about effective political strategies. Simple tactics work because they are single minded; more focus = more energy = more success.

    What actions should we be taking? I've been thinking that voting is key. Specifically, voting with a bias towards women at increased rates. Get out the vote in every election (some local gov't turnouts are dismal). Once they're there they need to vote for women. Straight ticket style. People vote straight tickets constantly, but to do so for women instead of party rubs people the wrong way… the issue is the same: that you don't know who to vote for, but feel like R/D is probably in your best interest. Voting for a woman is in your best interest and we need to get people to go towards that bias rather than party. Now is a good time for this tactic, b/c while you're going to be battling the 'reverse sexism' attitude, you'll probably get some positive response from the increasing number of people who see the party lines blurred.

    The story about Running Start really hit it home for me. The political leadership program for girls had an increase in applicants from 300 to 30,000 in one year (2009). http://thenewagenda.net/2009/04/28/good-news-for-women-girls/
    Women in office and women campaigning for office, receiving the support of women who want to encourage the next generation of women to go even higher with even greater numbers. That's it. That's how we do it.

    • Faith September 22, 2009 at 2:35 AM #

      “Voting for a woman is in your best interest and we need to get people to go towards that bias rather than party.”

      So you’re saying it would be a good idea to vote for, oh, Sarah Palin just because she has a vagina? Um, no, I’m afraid not. Just because a politician has a vagina does not mean that it’s in my best interest to vote for them. I do believe in supporting women politicians as much as possible, but arguing that we should vote for women -all- the time just because they are women is incredibly naive. Some of the most misogynistic, racist, homophobic people on this planet are women. Men aren’t the only ones who absorb the harmful messages of patriarchy and act upon them.

      • maria September 22, 2009 at 3:25 AM #

        I’m not talking about politicians that you have researched and know that you don’t politically allign with. I’m talking about using sex as a positive identifier along the lines of party voting. People vote a straight ticket when they don’t know who to vote for, when that’s the criteria then, yes, I say vote for greater representation of women.

        It’s not naive to vote for women -all- the time, it just depends on your outlook and approach. There are many people who believe the positive impact that a female VP (Palin) could have on women is worth the political risks associated with her. I mean that in the sense of the link I posted… if Palin means a significant increase in girls wanting to go into politics, then maybe that’s worth it to some people. Considering how badly (imo) Obama has dropped the ball, I can definitely see how the impact Palin could have on girls’ view of themselves to be worth voting for.

        We need to stop acting like these politicians are some sort of white knights. We have a majority of liberals/democrats in congress, where has that gotten us in the past 3 years? Obama specifically said that abortions won’t be covered in his health plan… yeah, what about that? I want change I know will happen, even if that change is 50% of all elected offices are held by women and nothing more.

        • Faith September 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM #

          ” I’m not talking about politicians that you have researched and know that you don’t politically allign with….It’s not naive to vote for women -all- the time, it just depends on your outlook and approach. ”

          You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe that we should vote for a woman simply because she’s a woman, or you don’t. Pick one, please. At the very least be consistent.

          • Andrew September 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM #

            She’s not necessarily being inconsistent.

            Not wanting to vote a female anti-christ into office should not be subordinated to voting for all women. The sentence before the sentence you called her out for was about how voting straight ticket was just as good, if not better, as voting straight gender in favor of women. That comes with the caveat though, that if a candidate it particularly bad she shouldn’t be supported simply for her gender.

            Her stance is that if it doesn’t matter to you, instead of letting party decide, let gender decide. If you have a favorite candidate or like someone who is strong on issues you value, still feel free to vote for them.

    • polly styrene September 22, 2009 at 6:07 AM #

      If society collapsed and had to be rebuilt, an important change would be capping wealth. The writers of the constitution believed resources were infinite, and seriously underestimated people’s greed…a fatal flaw

      Well I don’t disagree with the income redistribution bit, Maria, but I disagree with almost everything else. First of all. America is not the world. Let me repeat that. America is not the world. There are women outside of the US of A.

      If there’s gonna be a plan, it’s got to be global. And Margaret Thatcher shows us that simply sticking women into the existing economic system in positions of power doesn’t work. Because they are more likely to be motivated by the desire for power than anything else, even if they have feminist sympathies (which Thatcher didn’t). See also Lindsey German’s remarks on Harriet Harman linked above.

      • maria September 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM #

        I didn’t mean to be USA centrist, capping the wealth is a principle that is important in any gov’t foundation. Redistribution of wealth is a likely outcome of capping, but not really the same thing.

        Also, I seem to be having problems getting my point across about voting. Andrew’s comment makes it clearer.

        On the Thatcher thing- I’m sorry but I don’t understand your point and it sounds like you’re saying that b/c a woman has a position that you don’t agree with that it is proof that voting women into power doesn’t work. Uh.. doesn’t work how? Women are getting closer to equal representation. That’s the goal and Thatcher helps get closer to it. Motivated by power? Is this specific for women seeking high offices or anyone…b/c it’s either a sexist statement or a moot point.

        Equal representation, that’s all I’m offering. A woman as prime minister isn’t going to solve all your problems or make double standards go away. If Clinton was president right now it wouldn’t make all our dreams of equality come true. Half the senate, half the supreme court, half of govenors and the house held by women…you really think that that will make no difference on a root level, beyond policies? Half of those women might be conservative, that’s part of the bag, that’s part of representating the whole.

      • veganprimate September 27, 2009 at 1:58 PM #

        If there’s gonna be a plan, it’s got to be global. And Margaret Thatcher shows us that simply sticking women into the existing economic system in positions of power doesn’t work.

        Didn’t Maria say that having women in political office would inspire future generations of girls? When Thatcher was in office, I was a schoolgirl and naive about politics. (I’m still pretty naive as an adult, but it’s by choice). I had no idea how bad Thatcher was, but I remember being exceedingly happy that there was a female prime minister. It gave me hope that women could do anything.

        Having men consistently rule over things impacts people psychologically. And despite a politicians failings or successes, my daily life doesn’t change much. There’s an overall perception I get about whomever is in charge, and if more women were in charge, I’d be pleased.

        • polly styrene September 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM #

          I had no idea how bad Thatcher was, but I remember being exceedingly happy that there was a female prime minister.

          Believe me, we weren’t over here.

  5. isme September 21, 2009 at 8:21 PM #

    Hmmm…I personally don’t ever see the goals of feminism ever being totally fulfilled. You are always going to have sexism…the best you can do is minimise it, or possibly reverse it, but it will still be there.

    Also, once sexism starts to drop off, I’d predict people will find some other group to hate more as a result. People need their petty hatreds and intolerances, it isn’t always around to the same amount, but it’s never going away.

    • Faith September 22, 2009 at 2:39 AM #

      “People need their petty hatreds and intolerances, it isn’t always around to the same amount, but it’s never going away.”

      If this is your opinion, then what exactly is it that you hope to gain from having a discussion with radical feminists? What is your goal? Simply mental masturbation?

      • isme September 22, 2009 at 3:28 AM #

        Firstly, I happen to be interested in other people’s opinions, even if they don’t happen to be the same as mine.

        Secondly, just because something is never going to be totally successful doesn’t neccesarily make it a failure. Despite the best efforts of feminists the world over, there’s still a long way to go, and I don’t believe any sort of final goal will be reached. But that’s not to say that they haven’t achieved massive progress.

        We are imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. Perfection is always going to be beyond us, but improvement is still something to strive for.

        • Rachael September 22, 2009 at 6:45 AM #

          I agree with this. I think that even if perfection is unattainable, it’s worth striving for.

  6. polly styrene September 21, 2009 at 8:32 PM #

    Marxism is an incomplete theory because Marx didn’t anticipate the degree to which embourgoisification (that looks wrong however I spell it) of the workers would take place. He also didn’t of course anticipate mass communication, or service economies etc, etc blah blah de blah blah. But give the guy his due, he was living in the nineteenth century and trying to find rich people to sponge off as well.

    The problem with the workers becoming *middle class* is that they then identify their interests as being in line with the ruling class i.e. their oppression is hidden from them.

    The internet has the power to be a great revolutionary force because the threat it poses to traditional mass media, is surely the real manifestation of Gramsci’s war of position.

    Well it could be, except most folks on it seem to want to laugh at stories about sex acts with pokemon. Or just look for porn.

    • Nine Deuce September 21, 2009 at 8:59 PM #

      That’s true. I often wonder what he’d say if confronted with the US (or any industrialized nation) today, when the bourgeoisie is half of the population or more, and when the lack of sumptuary regulations means that they’re all free to pretend to be the ruling class.

      How would he explain the fact that his theory justified revolutions in agrarian societies that didn’t fit with it at all? How would Marx have responded to Maoism? Doesn’t the example of China completely destroy Marx’s theory of historical progress? Well, obviously it does, and I don’t suppose that matters, but I’d like to know what he’d say to the fact that among the societies that most closely followed his theory of historical progress none has seen a socialist revolution.

      OK, unmodified Marxism is out. Though I don’t think anyone didn’t already agree on that.

  7. Joan Kelly September 21, 2009 at 8:58 PM #

    To me, making a better world is one thing (economic and labor justice, including what is discussed above, qualify as steps to a better world in my view), and ending male supremacy is another.

    What would have to change for male supremacy to end would be enough women refusing to serve male interests, period. And of course it would involve violence – it already does, when the majority of women do serve male interests in various ways, so there’s no reason to think that dudes will suddenly become passive if mass refusals ever start.

    So to me – enough people in class female would have to say “fuck no” without qualification + be willing to fight back as male violence escalates in response. Males are clearly not going to be “educated” or sweet talked into getting their boots off our necks. Males are not ever going to end male supremacy of their own volition. Either females ultimately someday do it, or it never gets done. Insofar as most women appear somewhat willingly invested in the current system, I’m not going to hold my breath.

    • Nine Deuce September 21, 2009 at 9:02 PM #

      I think you’re probably right, but there has to be hope. So, is the next step forward for women to convince other women that it’s in our best interest to tell men to fuck off and get ready to defend ourselves from retributive violence? I think that violence is already evident in the increase in aggressively dehumanizing and degrading porn and media representations of women, though I doubt that it wouldn’t get worse if women began to resist those things.

      • Joan Kelly September 22, 2009 at 9:01 PM #

        I don’t actually think it’s possible to convince women of anything. I hope I’m wrong, but it’s not been my experience. The way I feel about the world – I already felt it before I came across others putting words to it. I didn’t have to be convinced, even though things did have to crystallize for me (I wasn’t shot out of the gate with the understandings/views I have now, in other words).

        Even with how I see things – it should be noted that I, too, am invested to some degree in male supremacy, and benefit from it. If someone with my dim outlook/observations is not willing to completely cut men off/out and take up arms if challenged, what the fuck hope is there for the masses of women who don’t even think things are “that bad?”

        Also, to other commenters – I am not *advocating* violence – I am noticing that it already happens to women in large scale, and positing that self defense would have to be stepped up quite a bit for women to get any freer. If you have beefs about violence (and I certainly do), kindly take it up with the actual people who are perpetrating and advocating it.

        • m Andrea September 28, 2009 at 7:48 AM #

          I probably should have included one of these, :/ to soften the blow. I love you ND, but this topic is a train wreck. lol Plus I’m crabby, nobody is discussing how nasty penises really are. *wah*

      • m Andrea September 28, 2009 at 7:41 AM #

        There is zero need for violence, when one uses deductive reasoning to isolate actual, practical options; and one is also willing to apply knowledge of mob psychology to those options.

        And no offence, but before a group of folks discusses any of that, they must carefully list, and agree on, the criteria and principles to be used when evaluating those options.

        Not only that, but any good strategic discussion would also include a clear outline of the specific problem(s) to be addressed, expected obstacles, and the desired outcome.

        Everyone has missed about four fucking overlapping steps, and therefore this thread is an utter pie-in-the-sky waste of oxyogen…

        Thorry.

        • Imaginary September 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM #

          Of course there is a need for violence in self defense! If a man is attacking a womyn (which will happen if we rebel) she has every right to attack back.

          Reasoning won’t work because the attackers aren’t reasoned.

    • isme September 22, 2009 at 3:33 AM #

      Just to clarify, when you talk about the end of women serving male interests, is this something akin to voting for women solely because they are women?

      Or to put it another way, do you mean male interests which harm women specifically, or in general, because those that do and those that do not have become inextricably linked?

      • joankelly6000 September 22, 2009 at 9:41 PM #

        I think you were asking this of me, isme? If so – no, I would not advocate or hope for women to vote for other women simply because they are women.

        I wouldn’t even know where to begin to list the things I do mean, when I talk about women discontinuing the service of male interests. But to me, there are no arbitrary declarations involved (women politicians good, men bad) – it involves taking a critical look at every single thing women do for and with men, including things that some women get something out of too. I think that’s part of the rub – a lot of women would have to stop doing some things they feel like doing in order for male interests ever to actually be solely males’ jobs to tend to. Do you know any/many women who would do that? I don’t.

        The issue for me is – that being the case, why the fuck do men still hate us so much? Why is it not enough that so many women willingly serve their interests? And that is why I, personally, would never rule out self defense against males, individually or en masse. They hate us, and they harm us. And you can bet the stats would go down if they had something real to fear each and every time they thought to harm a woman.

        I would like peace and non violence as much as the next person. When I find a population of males who allow for it, I’ll let you know, and I hope you’ll return the favor.

        • isme September 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM #

          “why the fuck do men still hate us so much? ”

          I’m not a psychologist, but personally, I’d say that they generally don’t. In the same way that a schoolyard bully may not happen to hate kids smaller than himself.

          IMHO, for many men who abuse women, they are just an acceptable target. They don’t particularly hate them, or really mean them much in the way of harm, but it’s alrgith to mistreat them, and if they cause more suffering then they intended, it’s not important.

          Though, I don’t really have anything much to back this view up, though.

          • cub September 24, 2009 at 8:16 PM #

            the sadism of bullies is tied to the pleasure response resulting from perceiving pain/fear in others– it is a real, documented phenomenon

            http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40962/title/Bullies_brains_empathize,_but_with_a_twist

            of course anyone who’s read susan griffin’s Pornography and Silence– spec. the chapter on de sade, could extrapolate the outcome of the research.

            beyond that, this is how power works: “i DO because i CAN.”

            back to the overall topic — i say we REALLY integrate sports– all those ‘roided-up female body builders could at least finally integrate baseball. there is no such thing as separate but equal– and if an institution automatically excludes half the human race, then change the institution, or ditch it.

            no whites-only=no men-only.

            go ahead, say it’s impractical, then substitute black for female and see how shitty your argument sounds.

            btw, this discussion reminds me of a meet-n-greet some students had with a prospective new prof who was a marxist in favor of the death penalty for rape. she didn’t get the job, but it felt good to know there were other crackpots out there, just like me, free to think radical thoughts and put women first– first, i tells ya!

          • polly styrene October 7, 2009 at 6:57 PM #

            How about the words of the incomparable Quentin Crisp? (which I can’t find quoted anywhere, but I read once somewhere and really stuck in my mind, so here goes from memory).

            “I think people misunderstand the point of gay bashing, or any kind of bullying. It’s simply a matter of attacking those who are unlikely to find defenders”

            The anger comes first and is then directed at acceptable targets. This is a function of capitalism of course. Happy laid back people don’t like to compete, and competition and striving is central to capitalism. It’s also very useful to direct anger that may otherwise be directed at the ruling elite, towards another group as a diversionary tactic of course.

        • joankelly6000 October 7, 2009 at 4:52 PM #

          a) I don’t worship you or any man (or woman for that matter)

          b) hey Nine Deuce, I thought this discussion was absolutely not open to non-feminists

          c) I couldn’t agree more that you’re not worth it

          d) I would love it if you went and choked to death on some other dude’s cock now.

          e) Thank you.

          • Nine Deuce October 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM #

            My bad. It’s gone.

          • Vohu Manu October 8, 2009 at 12:21 AM #

            I regret that I have insulted you or anyone else here, it was not my intention, though I will understand it when you do not believe me on this.
            I found it surprising that it was insulting though as I have had other radical feminists agree with my made statements and have regularly seen them make them themselves. Perhaps I did not clearly articulate my point or it got lost through my translation, either way it does not excuse me as then I should have been more careful choosing my words.

            If you would allow me then I shall try and explain some of the points I tried to make, but if you already stopped reading then I do not blame you. It is not your job to explain everything to everyone, but still I would gladly hear what was so sexist about my statements. This in particular as I have never been called sexist for these statements and even get praise from the radical feminists I know. If my reasoning was flawed or just plain sexist then I would like to correct myself because I do not which to be like that, furthermore would it mean that I have become too great a risk and would like to inform the women in my life of this, in particular the feminists I know as they then have gravely misjudged me, a mistake they then hopefully will learn not to make again with someone else.

            First joankelly6000, I did not mean to insinuate that you, anyone here, or all women for that matter worship men by definition. (I don’t think you personally “willingly serve men’s every need”) I only pointed out that amongst women, especially young girls there is the idea that they must have a partner, a male one. That there life is somehow not complete when they do not conform to this stereotype. (Is it not true that this stereotype is widely forced upon them in our society?) As such many will falsely believe that the attention of men is extremely important, that they can’t live normal/happy without a man, and because of that they will endure a lot of them as they think they are needed. (they will endure them for other reasons as well of course: the propaganda that man have this right, loss of willpower due to constant maltreatment, because sometimes they have no choice,…)
            When you consider someone’s approval necessary and do stuff for them to get it do you not then worship them? Someone does not have to be considered nice, or good in any field to be worshipped, just look at most gods.
            So first they (this, once again is not all women, but those who are following the manipulation and pressure put on them by patriarchy to follow such a stereotype, this in whatever degree.) will ‘worship’ men to get them in their lives, because they have been told from childhood that this is a must in their live. And when they have one and see that they are clearly not all that great, they will in many cases make up excuses for the man’s bad behavior because it is hard to suddenly believe that men will not necessarily make them happy after a lifetime hearing that they will, and a society telling them they will and telling them it is the woman’s fault if he doesn’t. Now is not the refusal to see somebody’s flaws a form of worship?

            You do not have to look far to see many women spending most of their time trying to get the attention and approval of men. You will also see that boys are in general more likely to be ‘worshipped’ by their mother. Furthermore many women will still value the opinion of a man more than that of a woman, this in politics, science, rapist versus victim,… I can go on, it is therefore that I do not think that my statement is wrong that many women ‘worship’ men and measure their value in their relation to men: how many boys think they are pretty, how good their boyfriend is,… I thought feminism was just about fighting things like these wrong stereotypes? Not all suppression of women is done only by physical means, society also imprints ideas in their brains with propaganda so that they willingly serve men’s need, ‘worship’ them. These things were also mentioned in the post I was replying to, I just called it worship, being shorter than “willingly serve our every need” which was used first, as both are synonyms, or so I believed. Perhaps my definition of worship is incorrect because for the rest I believe I just repeated a part of the basis of feminism.

            Or perhaps my statement was read as though I said that women want to be slaves of men, that they worship them because they must have a rational idea that men are better than them. This was definitely not what I meant, I meant that sometimes they have been manipulated in doing so, as I thought was common knowledge here, it even being mentioned before.
            Further do I certainly not blame it on women, at least not most of them. It is men who suppress, they are to blame. Most women who aid men in doing this, for instance by serving them, or by helping spread the stereotypes, are mostly not aware that they do something wrong because they have been manipulated to do this, and therefore they are not to blame. Sometimes they are not innocent, women in power who promote sexism for instance. Either way women contribute to their own suppression, that is something you cannot deny and it was not me who first made this statement here.

            The only other thing I noted (as far as I remember) is that men (being a good proportion of them) hate women, even more so when these women “willingly serve their every need” (as I described as worship) because those women “so willingly serve their every need”. (being not you, anyone here specifically , or all women, but a large enough portion of them in varying degrees as such that it has become a strong means for suppression on its own) This because men although do enjoy the submissiveness of women as it gives them advantages, they do not respect women for it, they see it as weakness, something they can’t respect. I do not see what is insulting, let alone sexist about this suggestion as it has evan been repeatedly observed where one person serves another. For instance one people surrendering without fight to another will be treated as dirt, employees who constantly suck op to their boss will get some perks but will be treated as a doormat by everyone,…
            I do not state that one may not be weak, or should be treated as inferior for it, I stated only that it can not attract respect, it can only remove it. For instance you cannot admire or respect someone for having little knowledge, you can and should however still treat them equal as a person because they are one and you can still love them or respect them for other things.
            There is a power difference between men and women laid upon them by culture, if their wasn’t a power difference feminism wouldn’t be necessary. So I don’t see how it is insulting or sexist to state that this power difference is maintained among other things by men hating and treating as inferior that which they find weak. And stating that: “willingly serving ones every need” when one does not deserve it could be considered weak by men neither.

            Once again, my apologies for hurting any of you, and my apologies should my reasoning be flawed or sexist. I would gladly hear what exactly I said was wrong and why this was wrong, so that I can act on this information.
            Oh and I will even consider choking myself to death on a penis, but only when I have proof that I am a danger to those I seek to protect. Until then I can do nothing else than try, just because I was born with a penis instead of a vagina does not mean I should just sit by and do and say nothing but choke myself to death on a penis, while so many suffer with hardly anyone ever coming to their aid.

            • Nine Deuce October 8, 2009 at 1:08 AM #

              The problem was delivery. Your original comment was phrased with sentences like “Why shouldn’t men hate you when you worship them?” And you placed the onus on women for men’s abuse. You see, whether some women “worship” men or not, it’s still men’s fault that men oppress women, and I’m not going to tolerate victim-blaming on this site.

              • Vohu Manu October 8, 2009 at 10:46 AM #

                Indeed I should have phrased it better. It was definitely never my intention to make such statements, I sought only to try and answer the question, as to benefit the cause. It is correct of you to not tolerate victim-blaming and if my post was read as such I am glad you acted on it and removed it.

                I do not claim it is the fault of women, I only claim they are a part of the problem, and I do not mean that they are guilty by this, but that they have been programmed to do things that keeps them suppressed. And it is impossible to adress their suppression without dealing with this programming as well. And since men see/have no reason to change, it is regrettably also up to women to change to hasten their and their sisters liberation, and I mean with this only to try and stop serving men so willingly, to fight the programming in their head, the stereotype that they must have a man and that they should please him, that men are better or more valuable than them,… It might sound as victimblaming, especially because I am a man saying this, but it is the sad truth, serving men contributes to the suppression of women and only when women are freed from the manipulation to do these things can they all be free. One extreme example is for instance the fact that a male rapist’s opinion is still valued more than that of his female victim, this also by a lot of women. Because they have been brainwashed to do this yes, but that doesn’t take away this problem, to blame or not such things must stop.
                If a man beats his wife, you shouldn’t just demand that the man becomes better, you should try and get the woman to leave him, I don’t say she is wrong or she is responsible and that is the reason she must, but simply because it helps. It is of course only the man who is in fault, but staying with him, hoping he will improve does nothing for that one woman, nor for all other women nor does it make the man respect her for it (they hate you for following the rules forced upon you, not because he will enjoy it more when you don’t, but because he sees you as weak for it/he sees it so, it don’t state it is so/ and to keep his power he must suppress those who are weak, or are called weak). Collectively leaving such priks does improve the live of that one woman and all other women. You can and must of course also punish the man as an example for others.
                My primary concern is not to point who is responsible for what, but to seek an end to sexism and as such I must look at all factors involved even if it means looking at what a victim can do for other victims. In the post I was answering to this was adressed as well, so it must have been terrible phrasing on my part, or perhaps because I had stated I was a man, I should have been more carefull making such statements, as indeed it is in most cases just victimblaming when one states this, simply to justify ones crimes.

                I try not to think in a men-women way, and when I stated that ‘men’ hate, ‘women’ “worship”,… I did not imply that this had anything to do with their gender, as these attitudes are common to humans (as a group, not every individual, nor at all times), not just one gender, I just filled men and women in at the places they at the time mostly take in this society, which perhaps I too shouldn’t have done so carelessly.

                Either way, I thank you for the clarification you have given me.
                And once again I would like to apologise for any insult I inattentionally made, and for taking so much of your time.
                I know now that I should try and learn to express myself correctly and weigh my words more beforehand.
                Well then, I hope you will soon find your revolutionary world p/e theory and gladly await its implementation.

            • joankelly6000 October 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM #

              I’m sorry I said the choke-to-death-on-a-dick thing. That was unnecessary and I wish I hadn’t said it.

              • Nine Deuce October 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM #

                Do you want me to delete it?

                • joankelly6000 October 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM #

                  Yes and no. Yes because it’s an ugly thing to keep seeing the light of day. No because that feels like a cover-up. Sometimes I’m ugly. Deleting evidence of said ugliness seems dishonest to me. Thanks for asking me, but I’m afraid I am not comfortable making that call.

                  Ugly AND indecisive, lord help me! :-P

            • polly styrene October 8, 2009 at 7:47 PM #

              Ok I missed the original comment. However I have one thing to say in reply:

              “Depends upon for economic survival” is not the same as “worship”.

              There are men who are necessary to my economic survival who I have to be nice to who I LOATHE AND DESPISE.

              • Vohu Manu October 8, 2009 at 10:48 PM #

                Situations where a woman has no choice but to serve men, because for instance she needs their money were of course not included, for the simple reason that you don’t willingly serve them in those cases.
                It are specifically women in such a position that they can live easily without serving men (most of the time) who can and should rebel against bad men, because in doing so they will also help others who can’t. (it would therefore even become a moral obligation for some)
                Only women who have a choice I would implore or in some cases even demand to stop willingly serve bad men. These would be middle class or higher, mostly white, living in a somewhat liberal society (a religious surrounding could for instance make it harder to rebel), not under any clear treath by the men they serve,…(which is in my country practically everyone, though in others it could certainly be far less)
                And the first step of course would be showing these women that they indeed have a choice, that the idee that they must have a man in their live and serve him, that that is their only choice, was all just a lie so men could freely abuse them.

              • isme October 9, 2009 at 12:36 AM #

                “Depends upon for economic survival” is not the same as “worship”.

                True…though economic survival is a reality, you also have things which aren’t bludgeoned into people. Women (and men too, to a lesser extent) aren’t complete until the’ve found their chosen (heterosexual) one, have a house with white picket fences, 2 point whatever kids, the man goes off to work while the women enjoys cleaning at home etc

    • roesmoker September 30, 2009 at 6:42 AM #

      I could not agree more. We can’t stand around waiting and hoping for men to get a clue. We have to hit them with a cluestick.

      I think the reason women are emotionally invested in the current system is because we’ve been brainwashed since birth to think that we need men when in fact it’s the other way around.

  8. polly styrene September 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM #

    Well I am, contrary to popular belief, a classic Marxist feminist, I just think Marx was born too early (I also still think Engels was the real brains of the outfit). I think capitalism (or other systems where private property is the cornerstone of society) is the root of the problem (Thanks FE). The way you emancipate anyone is economically.

    You have to realise that capitalism has no vested interest in women being liberated, because it needs to reproduce its workforce. The processes of classic liberal feminism are akin to the process of workers becoming *middle class*. There is enough apparent progress to quell rebellion, and get women to identify their interests with the ruling class. And when that fails, you have empowerfullmentalism.

    • berryblade September 22, 2009 at 6:17 AM #

      ” I think capitalism (or other systems where private property is the cornerstone of society) is the root of the problem (Thanks FE). The way you emancipate anyone is economically.”

      You and me both Polly.

      I’d suggest something along the lines of what I saw in that semi-scam of a Zeitgeist movie – resource based ‘economy’, that is, our value is the natural land and the fair and equitable distribution of it.

      There’s more than enough to go around on this planet, it’s just that capitalism in its heart of hearts is directly opposed to this.

  9. polly styrene September 21, 2009 at 9:40 PM #

    And the porn is one of the only ways to make money in the media these days. And serves the handy dual purpose of keeping men AND women in line.

  10. Andrew September 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM #

    Great post.

  11. polly styrene September 21, 2009 at 9:57 PM #

    I quite like Lindsey German on the subject of Marxist Feminism (even though she was in the SWP who are largely knobs). I didn’t realise she had a blog, but here’s a nice accessible piece on what’s wrong with feminsm lite.

    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/lindsey/2009/08/womens-liberation-lite.html

  12. polly styrene September 21, 2009 at 10:23 PM #

    And this essay, (although it has many flaws) is a nice discussion of the problem in more depth.

    http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=32&issue=101

    • cub September 24, 2009 at 8:35 PM #

      okay– i’m glad you mentioned the flaws, b/c she hasn’t a clue about the genesis of the women’s movement in the u.s.– she wrote as if it started in the 1960s ferfuksake–that’s enough, i’m stopping myself… she might know about u.k. feminism, but don’t take her seriously on u.s. feminist history, please.

      • polly styrene September 24, 2009 at 9:14 PM #

        Well she’s not that hot on labour patterns in the UK either. But I think her theories on the role of the sex industry in capitalism are very intriguing. And credible.

  13. polly styrene September 21, 2009 at 10:30 PM #

    But there is little chance of revolution while Goths in Hot Weather exists I fear. Or me going to bed at this rate.

  14. buttersisonlymyname September 22, 2009 at 1:34 AM #

    People dying?!

    This is probably not important, but I hope nobody is seriously suggesting killing people in the name of feminism…

    • Nine Deuce September 22, 2009 at 2:29 AM #

      That’s why I asked the question about us having lost the plot if we were to become violent. But I also wonder whether people think a wholesale reorganization of society and a sustainable future would require large-scale deaths.

      • Andrew September 22, 2009 at 2:45 PM #

        With population of the world reaching 8 Billion its hard to imagine that death would be off the table.

        Concerns about equitable distribution/structure of society aside, any sort of sustainable future would probably lead to a reduction in the food supply.

        That alone would do a great deal in wiping out many on this planet.

        • berryblade September 24, 2009 at 4:42 AM #

          I just support the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

          People are fucked – the world would be infinitely better off without us. Any of us.

          • James October 2, 2009 at 5:05 PM #

            But who’d notice?

      • buttersisonlymyname September 22, 2009 at 7:04 PM #

        I think the very thought is disturbing. I don’t really believe in revolution (except a revolution of the heart), but even if I did I think I would prefer a peaceful sort of movement, and not a violent one.

        I don’t think we should be violent, period. Society is already evolving, and we should simply help the evolution along with goodness and faith.

        Yes, I am that optimistic.

        • polly styrene September 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM #

          I’m not necessarily opposed to violence for selected human beings, but it never works as a strategy for changing things long term. As the history of the world teaches us. I wish Obama, Brown etc could only get it through their thick skulls. We are never going to win the *war on terror*, we’re just feeding it. Similarly with any attempt to impose ideological change through guns.

  15. Rachael September 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM #

    This is a pretty heavy topic, and a lot of questions. I’ll just answer one.

    I suppose it’s naive to hope that we can change anything without violence, but I will continue to hope.

  16. eibhear September 23, 2009 at 3:58 AM #

    I’ve personally always favoured the society on Annarres as described in Ursula K. Le Guin,s, “The Dispossessed”.

  17. factcheckme September 23, 2009 at 11:43 PM #

    the meaning of life indeed. this is obviously a very difficult question to answer, and i dont think i am really answering it here. but i think the aims of feminism need to always be considered, and those aims are to advance women as a class; and to eradicate rape, domestic violence, and birthing injuries/unwanted pregnancies that only or almost only affect women. so we should always ask how our policies are affecting (for better or worse) those things, both domestically and worldwide.

    i guess i would wonder why almost every culture in the world has been patriarchal and/or misogynist and go from there? where does that come from? menstrual taboos are big almost everywhere, even continuing in the developed world, largely thanks to patriarchal and misogynist religions. do our physical differences have something to do with the problem of perceived strengths and weaknesses of men and women? i think the answer to that is YES so i think the gender binary has to go. once we get past that (or at the same time we are dealing with that) we have to acknowledge that women give birth, women giving birth is literally required for society to survive, and how can we accept that without throwing women as a class to the dogs? around the world, malnourished 12-year olds are being married off to older men and impregnated, only their bodies are so small they cannot safely bring a fetus to term. they are dying in childbirth, or suffering internal injuries rendering them permanently incontinent. their quality of life, if they even survive, is nonexistant. international womens issues need to inform the discussion about domestic policy: beyond the american pro-choice rhetoric, in reality, when you look at the matter world-wide, reproductive issues are literally a matter of human dignity, and a medical event, within a largely non-christian value system.

    i think money has a lot to do with it, and frankly i have lost the faith/idealism required to believe that americans will ever be able to eradicate poverty here. theres too much money to be made off of poverty: our nonprofits are making their own directors rich, are employing all manners of service providers (barely keeping them in lower-middle class wages, but paying them nontheless) and very little money/food etc ends up in the clients’ hands. someone with a much bigger brain than i will have to figure out the money part.

    any ideas?

  18. Andrew September 24, 2009 at 1:35 AM #

    I was thinking about this.

    Is it possible that women can not do well under any capitalist/quasi-capitalist system?

    If women may do well, even very well, under such a system, what keeps it from being seriously considered as an alternative?

    Is it the general repugnancy of capitalism to certain people’s ethos?

    • berryblade September 24, 2009 at 4:45 AM #

      No one does well under a capitalist system though -it’s just under our present scheme women are the worst done by in terms of well, pretty much everything.

      • isme September 24, 2009 at 6:50 PM #

        “No one does well under a capitalist system though”

        Um…what?

        The western world is under a capitalist system, every right and privilege you enjoy (and despite legitimate complaints about these, there are alot of them), is something you have under a capitalist system.

        Just about every possession you own came about because something realised there’d be money in it. You’re only able to read what I’m writing because Bill Gates saw a profit to be made.

        Capitalism is the only system adopted that in any sense of the word, works.

  19. Alderson Warm-Fork September 24, 2009 at 5:33 AM #

    I wrote a bit on this at my blog a while back and will happily elaborate/link if pressed.

    Some theses that I’ll just throw out, at the risk of looking more certain than I am:

    -capitalism and sexism are both class systems, i.e. systems of oppression in which the existence of the oppressed is integrally necessary to the very existence of the divisions and the maintenance of the economic/sexual system.

    -racism is not this so much; black and white communities, relatively self-contained, are possible, and such communities could maintain their organiation with the loss of other races with much less change than if women lived without men or capitalists without workers (this false to an extent, but true mainly). Similarly, people with disabilities, slum-dwellers, sexual minorities, etc. are not vitally necessary to the existence of the systems that oppress them. I say this because I think it can be obscuring to list as many oppressions as we can and treat them as being the same. Capitalism and sexism are class systems, and they may be the only (or only large) ones.

    -The goal of an emancipatory movement in a class system is the abolition of that system, which means the abolition of the exploited class itself. Hence feminists should seek the abolition of gender, manhood, and womanhood as organising categories.

    -Class systems are overthrown from within by the emergence of a class which is both necessary to the system, and strong enough to overthrow it, and interested in overthrowing it.

    -For capitalism this class is the proletariat (however defined). For sexism this class is more specific than ‘women’, it is ‘modern women’, a sex-class distinguished from other female sex-classes by (roughly) being independent enough (a job, multiple sexual partners, legal equality, no official movement restrictions) to experience manhood and womanhood as general social facts, not through a specific, rigid, relationship to a single man.

    -Just as the development of capitalism pushes ever greater sections of the world’s population into the proletarian condition, so the development of modern sexism (‘fratriarchy’, if you’ll pardon the pun, distinguished from the preceding sexism by the dominance of a sex-class of unattached young men rather than of older married child-having ‘patriarchs’) pushes ever greater sections of the world’s female population into the condition of ‘modern woman’.

    -The maturation of this class (its numerical growth and development of class-consciousness, enabled by its freedom from the isolation that afflicted previous female sex-classes) will short-circuit sexist society because their immediate interests (the most favourable terms in the male-female sexual exchange) cannot be satisfied except by undermining the superior position of power of men over women, which is definitional of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and defines their respective class-sexualities.

    -The continued dominance of the sex-class system is responsible for the failure of communists’ predictions regarding the proletariat. Whereas communists had posited the proletariat as having a direct class-interest in improving the ‘power’ of labour, which would overthrow capitalism, they did not sufficiently understand this ‘power’.

    They supposed it could be satisfied by ‘power over oneself and one’s life and surroundings’, i.e. freedom. They did not anticipate that it might (to an extent that may be less than 50%, but still has evidently been decisive) be satisfiable only through ‘power over others’ i.e. domination. Freedom is compatible with socialism, domination isn’t, so if this is how the proletariat’s class interests are psychologically manifested, they will be such as to always diverge from socialism.

    The psychology of one who needs not just freedom but domination is ‘masculine’ psychology, stemming from the definitional need for masculinity to define itself as powerful *in opposition to* femininity, which it must distinguish itself from.

    (The psychology of femininity is little better, insofar as to be feminine is to define oneself as powerless [or rather, as an object] in relation to someone else, whose possession of power completes and satisfies one)

    Hence insofar as the psychology of masculinity and femininity remains socially pervasive, the proletariat does not have a class interest in socialism, and can only find dead ends (whether of the left or the right).

    • cub September 24, 2009 at 9:15 PM #

      oh yeah! esp. this:
      “They supposed it could be satisfied by ‘power over oneself and one’s life and surroundings’, i.e. freedom. They did not anticipate that it might … be satisfiable only through ‘power over others’ i.e. domination. Freedom is compatible with socialism, domination isn’t, so if this is how the proletariat’s class interests are psychologically manifested, they will be such as to always diverge from socialism.”

      whenever i get caught in a weird alienating situation, and i don’t understand people’s actions, X always ends up equaling Power. i have specifically-targeted asperger’s when it comes to power politics, because i seek only autonomy, and at great pain have tried to learn to cope with my failing.

  20. factcheckme September 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM #

    very relevant to the question of violent vs. nonviolent revolution…http://blogs.feministsf.net/?p=1296

    its a sci-snark video called “Star Nonviolentcivildisobedience”.

    • cub October 11, 2009 at 8:26 AM #

      my faves– plot to pie hitler, and the triumph on page 43 XD

  21. gare September 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM #

    Is it necessary for a bunch of people have to die in the course of a wholesale reorganization of human society? Who will those people be? Who gets to participate in the revolution?

    Its absolutely necessary for a bunch of people to die for wholesale change. And they will .. everyone dies, revolutions dont need to help them along. We actually probably need everyone now alive to die and new folks with new ideas to come along and build on what we believed and left behind. In other words, we probably need another 100 years of social evolution. Once you resign yourself to the fact in your lifetime you won’t see what you believe in, you are perhaps more content to do your small part.

  22. Kita September 27, 2009 at 1:41 AM #

    Yikes, all this reading makes me think I’m a total Pollyanna. I think we need the boot off our necks, but the only way it can happen is to Ghandi-out, world-wide. And I can’t see it happening, as too many of the oppressed work within the system, or benefit from it.

    I think to distract myself from this fact, I tend to focus on the smaller (seemingly fixable) problems, but ND, you’re right, we need to have a larger goal in mind. Thanks for bringing it up!

    And Butter…, I’m with you.

    • Andrew September 27, 2009 at 7:07 AM #

      The problem with the whole peaceful thing is that it only works by shaming the better part of the first world into applying political pressure against the oppressor on behalf of the oppressed.

      When it is the the first world that needs to be specifically shamed, and when it’s oppression is so egregious that it is built into the structural framework of society, then peaceful change is not a solution.

      I don’t think it is the intention of feminists to wait every 70 years to pass an amendment or achieve some sort of legal protection, checking them all off of the list one by one until God knows how many years has passed.

      It should be clear to any student of history that when there is no first world to shame; no passive bourgeoisie to appeal to in order to gain political pressure, the revolution is often violent, if not chaotic. (French Rev., Russian Rev., American Rev., Etc)

      • John October 14, 2009 at 1:03 AM #

        Could a movement be peaceful (in that no life is lost) but still work by frightening the first world? Several comments have pointed out the close ties between the economic systems of the world and oppression. Would targeted destruction of property effectively draw concessions from those in power? For this to work, those in power must be so obsessed with the accumulation of capital (in the short term) that they will accept a reduction in power in exchange for the resumption of profit. What sorts of property would be most useful to destroy, and in what ways?

  23. Imaginary September 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM #

    I’d be willing to die for our freedoms. I’m in Canada, but I’m sure hockey sticks do a fair bit of damage.

    I suggest that we live in little tribes, with no official rules, just take things one case at a time. Except rape. Rape is punishable by prolonged death and eating whatever we pull out of our noses. Fuck yeah!

    All seriousness aside, I don’t see how we could expect equality without violence. Even if some may not like it, retaliation is inevitable, and I’d rather kick some ass than be raped. No no no no no.

    But I’m pretty sure I’m avoiding the issue: what do we do after the fighting? Unless I’m just stupid and missing the point. I still like the little tribes.

  24. Sadinotna September 29, 2009 at 3:15 AM #

    The essential problem is that revolution is the core fuel of the current model that all modern power systems are built on. It can survive without men and women; it can survive without proletarians (indeed, they have all but ceased to exist!) but it cannot survive without constant flux and an “oppressor” to revolt from (Capitalism, for example, was at its absolute highest performance, given its goals, when fighting the Soviets).

    Now, given that we can’t start a revolution (as that simply makes the system stronger) what is there we can do?

    Well, we know that sexism has the crippling flaw of relying on biology, which makes it much easier to oppose. We already have sex change operations, gene therapy is getting better every year, and it is quite obvious that augmented reality is going to make the physiological senses (and meatspace) near superfluous. Biological sex change will soon become as common as plastic surgery, with new sexes, and more importantly, non-sexes, invented every year.

    The holistic view of biology and the concept of person will not survive in such an environment. Once the “person” is reduced to a collection of interchangeable parts (eventually this will extend to the brain, interchangeable memories for example, and finally kill the wretched notions of “consciousness” and “the soul”), sex discrimination will become impossible as sexes will, for all but the most Luddite of us, cease to exist. Other systems will remain, but sexism is not something especially difficult to overcome. Just time consuming.

    • Andrew October 6, 2009 at 5:19 AM #

      There is something really wrong with the logic in this comment but I can’t quite put my finger on it. One major problem is that is assumes a significant number of “natural born” men or women would want to change their sex for the sake of eradicating “sexual discrimination”. (I’m putting this in quotes because I have no idea how making everyone trans will effect notions of masculine and feminine). I don’t think this is accurate.

      Also, your goal is presumably…equality? Equality is a moral principle premised on a sense of innate human dignity. Why would anyone care about this in a society that has shed itself of “wretched notions of consciousness and ‘the soul’.”

      Your embracement of such a grey, dystopian (and slightly gross) future does not really address the fundamental problem of helping women as women. Turning everyone into some sort of soulless trans-man does not really get you there.

      • Sadinotna October 15, 2009 at 8:26 AM #

        Equality? No, equality is nonsense. What I want is entertainment, and sexism, and anti-sexism, has become quite boring. Same with biological sexes; they’re completely arbitrary so why not change them? Its time we had some novelty.

        And yes, this would additionally benefit feminism because removing the possibility of binary sexual classification would remove sexism. (sexism is systemic stereotyping and prejudice based ON one of two binary sexual classifications.)

        Also, lol at “soulless trans-man”. More morality and dualism. Amusing how little most feminism has changed since the suffragettes.

  25. Mary September 29, 2009 at 9:22 AM #

    Politics and economics are influenced by how much we perceive ourselves as being at one with Nature. We would be happier if we see ourselves as animals, nature and cosmos.

  26. James October 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM #

    Very much like this post. Hope that it gets somewhere.

  27. Cilen October 6, 2009 at 10:53 PM #

    You guys are saying a bit about how the only way would probably be violence, otherwise it would take a really long time. But, violence really isn’t an option, for a long time. The only way to make violence and option is to build up forces of people actually willing to fight, and to get weapons. But at that point feminism would essentially turn into a terrorist act, at least that’s what the media would say, which would kill the cause for an even longer time.

    And right now there’s no way you can stand up against any government, you will die. And it will actually move the feminist movement back a few steps, if not killing it.

    Violence will never be an option, most likely.

  28. Mandos October 14, 2009 at 12:35 AM #

    Revolutionary violence on a global scale is not going to work for the simple reason that nuclear weapons exist. As long as that is the case—ie, forever, as they are proliferating without bound, and there is no reasonable way to retract them—the ruling class has the ability to inflict a scorched Earth on a world that attempts to reject them. This precludes the opportunity for large-scale revolutionary violence.

    Therefore any large scale change to a classless society will have to come about, in some way, via the consent of the ruling class, or enough of it to restrain the part of the ruling class that does not consent.

    At a more local scale, things may be different…

  29. Bill February 26, 2010 at 7:32 AM #

    Death to Capitalism!

    End ALL private ownership of land, buildings, businesses. No more McDonalds and Walmart. Replace them all with federally-owned farms, factories, and distribution centers which produce and provide ONLY healthy, environmentally responsible products.

    People will be assigned occupations and living spaces based on social need, not personal whims.

    Free speech is a nice idea, but destructive in practice. Using slurs against the disadvantaged should result in heavy fines, maybe even jail.

    NO ONE will be denied food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or basic entertainment regardless of economic status or willingness to work.

    In an egalitarian society, no one should have anything that everyone cannot have. If EVERYONE cannot have a mansion and a yacht, NO ONE should have a mansion and a yacht. If EVERYONE cannot go to Paris in the Spring, NO ONE should go to Paris in the Spring.

  30. Anonymous October 21, 2010 at 7:22 AM #

    Less men.

    I see no reason why women cannot forge fulfilling emotional and physical bonds with one another (no really, I don’t think I’m lesbian but I just don’t see that a male-female relationship is necessarily more productive than a female-female relationship – asides from reproductive.)

    So we can keep some men around for recreational and procreational use (and possibly some hard labour) and the rest of the world, as the male population declines ever more, is taken over by women.

    Males have historically asserted dominance through violence – with less men, there’s less violence. Less rape. Less methane.

    What a wonderful world.

    Now to develop a vaccine for being male. Female chemists / biologists / other-relevant-field-ists – to the labs!

    (In all seriousness, I really see nothing wrong with this idea as long as there is no violence or pain involved in steadily lessening the number of male babies. Asides from the ‘how’ involved in that process – i.e. how the hell do we have less male babies?! – it seems a perfect solution to me.)

    P.S. Very late to this party I know, but 36-hour piracy in Pakistan does not extend to feminism. Unfortunately.

  31. isme October 22, 2010 at 1:54 AM #

    “(In all seriousness, I really see nothing wrong with this idea as long as there is no violence or pain involved in steadily lessening the number of male babies. Asides from the ‘how’ involved in that process – i.e. how the hell do we have less male babies?! – it seems a perfect solution to me.)”

    Ban sexual intercourse (dunno how you’d enforce that…castration?) and have babies created by IVF or somesuch instead. You should be able to choose the gender of the child that way.

    Also, it avoids problems with designer babies, because they could be the norm.

  32. Angrial October 22, 2010 at 11:05 PM #

    Is this thread dead? I was lurking and it just seemed to digress.

  33. FelixtheCat October 23, 2010 at 10:44 AM #

    “castration?”

    I seriously hope you guys are joking.

  34. isme October 23, 2010 at 8:42 PM #

    “I seriously hope you guys are joking.”

    Nope, the evil cult of feminism is *this* close to bursting from the shadows and overthrowing the natural order of things.

  35. Angrial October 23, 2010 at 10:18 PM #

    Isme,
    I’m thinking there would be some resistance to the process of mandantory wholesale castration. Also,
    castration doesn’t necessarily prevent sexual intercourse, it just prevents pregnancy in a big way.I have a former student that was castrated because of testicular cancer in his teens and he was not having any problems sexually. He just has a drug routine because this proceedure also causes deformaties in the recipient in the long term(i.e.classic eunic syndrone) IVF, you still have to have sperm to complete the process,Herr Docktor. Cloning yourself might work, but we are still having problems with the prevention of accelerated aging in the offspring.

  36. isme October 24, 2010 at 6:23 AM #

    Ok, yeah, would depend on the manner of castration. If you went the “clean shaven” (I think that was the euphemism used in certain parts) route, for example, then there’s no problem.

    And, IIRC, sperm is produced very soon after a child is born, you just have to restrain yourselves and not do it immediately upon the male’s birth.

    Admittedly, yes, some people might object to the idea…but probably not really that many more than who’d instinctively object to anything remotely feminist-sounding anyways.

  37. FelixtheCat October 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM #

    isme: I knew it! Time to organize the man-sistance! Or umm… male-ution?

    Dang… we can’t revolt until we think of a good name.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 479 other followers