Topic: Radical Feminism (continued from Capitalism) - page 3. (Read 5909 times)

Don't have the time to elaborate now, I already tried to explain it thoroughly in the many pages of this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/libertarian-my-ass-160726

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

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

I'll try to elaborate more later on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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?

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

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.

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"

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. :/ 

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?

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.

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.

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.

What did Kropotkin say about women and feminism, Rampion?

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?

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.

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 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.