[Feminism] Death of the author's marriage

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Feminism] Death of the author's marriage

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Pentecoastal Elites posted:

for a non shitpost itt it should be said that like economics, unless it's marxist, feminism is just hot takes and astrology for... well, people who like astrology

I got Federici's Revolution at Point Zero a while ago from a Verso ebook sale and thought it was a pretty excellent collection. Keep in mind I'm very dumb but it make me stop and reconsider what the means of production actually means and what the reproduction of labor, especially in terms of literal reproduction, family care, housework, elder care, etc etc, entails. I'd love further marxist feminist recs if you've got em.

i like The Second Sex as a filthy commie because it's by someone stunningly smart and you can see, by examination in detail, how much of the 'essential' feminine arrises out of conditions and causes psychological changes. which is revelant beyond being the means of social reproduction, which is only part of it

ymmv if not a philosophy nerd but it's good

# ¿ Nov 20, 2021 15:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 09:50

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Ash Crimson posted:

Her house and her address appears on both wikipedia and guide books for edinburgh lmao

This is like me standing outside the gates of the Queens address with anti royalist flags and taking pictures

Jk is so desperate to victimise herself

her feminism requires that she's a brave heroine, that's the part she caught

# ¿ Nov 23, 2021 14:59

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Ash Crimson posted:

Standing against the all powerful might of the trans lobby that is simultaneously very powerful but also still unable to secure basic poo poo for trans people

the enemy is simultaneously weak and very powerful, now where have i heard that one before?

# ¿ Nov 23, 2021 15:06

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

A Buttery Pastry posted:

This doesn't quite hit the mark. These people actually just believe the trans lobby is very powerful, because it's really just the patriarchy trying to encroach on female spaces, they don't simultaneously hold the belief that it's weak.

they believe it's weak enough that they can fight it, a level appropriate enemy. a giant threat but one that can be destroyed with just enough heroic effort, purifying the volk

this is what reaction does, it takes groups of people that can be defeated and paints them as responsible for all the ills that are caused by structures too difficult to see & effect. it's ritual blood sacrifice in slow motion

# ¿ Nov 23, 2021 16:40

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Dr. Stab posted:

To this, they make wild assertions like "that's why you never see gay trans people." It's such a surreal claim to see be made. It's on par with (painting trans women as predators) "trans lesbians never pursue each other, only 'real' women." Meanwhile, in real life, nearly every trans person I know is gay and/or dating a other trans person.

It's revealing how much, to them, trans people aren't real people who exist phenomenologically and whose behaviours can be observed, but are rather a philosophical abstraction. A curiosity to be pondered. This is also apparent by the belief that they can somehow rationalize trans people out of existence. Like, if they just did gender theory good enough, we'd just poof into the ether.

i think it's the negation of negation problem, that is you define if you define something a negation of something else, you've removed all the room you have for any other idea. so if your idea of the feminine is not-penis-haver, you literally can not understand a feminine penis, it's a contradiction

these categories in general and binaries in particular, are for our limited brains, you'll always be able to produce more gradients because there's always more to the world than the models we keep in our heads. the negation of the negation is not the original thing if you take it seriously, you find more than you started with

# ¿ Nov 23, 2021 17:24

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Pentecoastal Elites posted:

still very funny to think how rowling could have become one of the most, if not the singlemost, beloved children's authors of all time if she just shut the gently caress up and enjoyed her giant castle and bottomless bank accounts. you hate to see it, but then again it's hard to expect anything else from a creature that arises from that rugose and stygian island of unnamable horrors.

you're forgetting the not-jewish goblins, the elves that love to be slaves, and the savior of the world deciding to join the FBI

# ¿ Dec 13, 2021 17:28

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Ash Crimson posted:

Very normal poo poo

honestly it is, to claim your trauma as your essence, to say you are the scars. deeply hosed up ofc

# ¿ Dec 18, 2021 15:32

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

gender critical: female is a category that exists and is defined by blood and horror. which of course is then justified by a mystical life generating experience, because that has to be worth it somehow. which in turn grossly distills an entire life down to a womb

'oh i've been treated like a thing? well i'll show, you, i'll like it!'

even the dancer thing is about being treated as an object, an object of desire. it's all so stunted

# ¿ Dec 18, 2021 15:47

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Ash Crimson posted:

Im dumb are you being serious or sarcastic

like if you get hit by a car and it breaks your spine, it is super common to be defined by that event in your own head ever after. it's 'normal' in that people do it all the time, it's hosed up in that it's not good for you or anyone else

# ¿ Dec 18, 2021 15:52

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

tokin opposition posted:

That's some low effort tomboyery right there smdh

just needs a skateboard

'how do you do, fellow tomboys'

# ¿ Dec 19, 2021 00:32

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

YOLOsubmarine posted:

Modern feminism sucks in a lot of ways, it�s entirely class agnostic, co-opted by corporations and dem politics, conflates taking catty �you go girl!� shots at men for actual liberation, etc

But it�s not to blame for a bunch of disaffected edgelords all hanging out in their internet cesspools turning each other into aspiring rapists and mass shooters because they aren�t �Chads� and can�t get �Stacys� to gently caress them even though they�re so nice and deserve sex as a reward. And it�s not to blame for a bunch of lovely divorced dads losing their minds because their wives and kids don�t want anything to do with them anymore and it absolutely must be someone else�s fault.

we got here exactly because capital was fine with detonating the patriarchy as it was if more surplus value could be squeezed out. talking about things in terms of personal virtue is almost always a shorthand for accepting capitalist realism

people need roles more than 'labor' or 'labor with the burden of social reproduction' or 'totally unaccountable lordling'. those edgelords are gusanos complaining about how castro stole their grandparent's farms, whining about how they should have a slave like grandpappy, but is this really surprising when we still allow for that third category, explicitly, as something to aspire to?

# ¿ Aug 22, 2022 20:47

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

loquacius posted:

Yeah

Being meant in earnest would be a huge coincidence (the wording is exactly the same as in the rhetorical usage), a huge non sequitur, and also require the poster to be lying

Occam's razor is pretty clear on this one

nerrrrrrrrrrd

# ¿ Aug 22, 2022 21:13

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Shiroc posted:

You can solve tons of material conditions, remove the atomization, reduce the numbers but you will still end up with people who want sex/relationships/whatever with people who aren�t interested in reciprocating. If people have agency, some number of people will still fall through cracks and not feel like they�re getting the relationships they feel like they deserve.

yes, and?

this is the lib objection to any change, that it won�t fix everything

# ¿ Aug 24, 2022 18:34

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

what's even more bizarre to me is that is the history of ignoring the universal in feminism is littered with gross FYGM. it's how you get second wave feminists going whoops all TERFS

where intersectionality came from posted:

Above all else, Our politics initially sprang from the shared belief that Black women are inherently valuable, that our liberation is a necessity not as an adjunct to somebody else's may because of our need as human persons for autonomy. This may seem so obvious as to sound simplistic, but it is apparent that no other ostensibly progressive movement has ever considered our specific oppression as a priority or worked seriously for the ending of that oppression. Merely naming the pejorative stereotypes attributed to Black women (e.g. mammy, matriarch, Sapphire, whore, bulldagger), let alone cataloguing the cruel, often murderous, treatment we receive, Indicates how little value has been placed upon our lives during four centuries of bondage in the Western hemisphere. We realize that the only people who care enough about us to work consistently for our liberation are us. Our politics evolve from a healthy love for ourselves, our sisters and our community which allows us to continue our struggle and work.

This focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics. We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else's oppression. In the case of Black women this is a particularly repugnant, dangerous, threatening, and therefore revolutionary concept because it is obvious from looking at all the political movements that have preceded us that anyone is more worthy of liberation than ourselves. We reject pedestals, queenhood, and walking ten paces behind. To be recognized as human, levelly human, is enough.

We believe that sexual politics under patriarchy is as pervasive in Black women's lives as are the politics of class and race. We also often find it difficult to separate race from class from sex oppression because in our lives they are most often experienced simultaneously. We know that there is such a thing as racial-sexual oppression which is neither solely racial nor solely sexual, e.g., the history of rape of Black women by white men as a weapon of political repression.

Although we are feminists and Lesbians, we feel solidarity with progressive Black men and do not advocate the fractionalization that white women who are separatists demand. Our situation as Black people necessitates that we have solidarity around the fact of race, which white women of course do not need to have with white men, unless it is their negative solidarity as racial oppressors. We struggle together with Black men against racism, while we also struggle with Black men about sexism.

We realize that the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy. We are socialists because we believe that work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and create the products, and not for the profit of the bosses. Material resources must be equally distributed among those who create these resources. We are not convinced, however, that a socialist revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will guarantee our liberation. We have arrived at the necessity for developing an understanding of class relationships that takes into account the specific class position of Black women who are generally marginal in the labor force, while at this particular time some of us are temporarily viewed as doubly desirable tokens at white-collar and professional levels. We need to articulate the real class situation of persons who are not merely raceless, sexless workers, but for whom racial and sexual oppression are significant determinants in their working/economic lives. Although we are in essential agreement with Marx's theory as it applied to the very specific economic relationships he analyzed, we know that his analysis must be extended further in order for us to understand our specific economic situation as Black women.

A political contribution which we feel we have already made is the expansion of the feminist principle that the personal is political. In our consciousness-raising sessions, for example, we have in many ways gone beyond white women's revelations because we are dealing with the implications of race and class as well as sex. Even our Black women's style of talking/testifying in Black language about what we have experienced has a resonance that is both cultural and political. We have spent a great deal of energy delving into the cultural and experiential nature of our oppression out of necessity because none of these matters has ever been looked at before. No one before has ever examined the multilayered texture of Black women's lives. An example of this kind of revelation/conceptualization occurred at a meeting as we discussed the ways in which our early intellectual interests had been attacked by our peers, particularly Black males. We discovered that all of us, because we were "smart" had also been considered "ugly," i.e., "smart-ugly." "Smart-ugly" crystallized the way in which most of us had been forced to develop our intellects at great cost to our "social" lives. The sanctions In the Black and white communities against Black women thinkers is comparatively much higher than for white women, particularly ones from the educated middle and upper classes.

As we have already stated, we reject the stance of Lesbian separatism because it is not a viable political analysis or strategy for us. It leaves out far too much and far too many people, particularly Black men, women, and children. We have a great deal of criticism and loathing for what men have been socialized to be in this society: what they support, how they act, and how they oppress. But we do not have the misguided notion that it is their maleness, per se�i.e., their biological maleness�that makes them what they are. As BIack women we find any type of biological determinism a particularly dangerous and reactionary basis upon which to build a politic. We must also question whether Lesbian separatism is an adequate and progressive political analysis and strategy, even for those who practice it, since it so completely denies any but the sexual sources of women's oppression, negating the facts of class and race.

# ¿ Aug 25, 2022 00:23

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

i disagree, feminism is required for communism; the goal is universal human liberation. this the paradox, only by grounding your personal idea of the struggle in the universal do you arrive at the correct framing:

quote:

To be recognized as human, levelly human, is enough.

the goal is that everyone's life has meaning, matters. this makes it easy to join in other struggles. to care about people in particular, even when your goals are broad and sweeping. and when it succeeds it means everyone has an interest in people being valued, because if people didn't matter maybe you don't matter either

or so it was successfully argued in cuba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_National_Center_for_Sex_Education posted:

State-funded sexual reassignment

The center pushed for passage of a law that would provide transgender persons with free sex reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy in addition to granting them new legal identification documents with their changed gender. A draft bill was presented to the Cuban parliament in 2005. Prior to being approved, it was suggested that the bill would make Cuba the most progressive nation in Latin America on gender issues.[3] The measure passed in June 2008.[4][5]

# ¿ Aug 25, 2022 01:36

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

some plague rats posted:

when you get to heaven there's a big sign over the gate that says No Whining so all enbies get sent immediately to hell

lol at you idiots that think you have to stay in hell or heaven. so weird

'guh, i have to stay in my assigned place forever, some dipshit in toga said so' that's you

# ¿ Aug 25, 2022 02:47

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Southpaugh posted:

I just think destroying the system that provides the material framework for the patriarchy would be a good start geez

friend pig, telling people you'll get around to it doesn't really ever work, fierce urgency of now and all that

# ¿ Aug 29, 2022 21:42

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Ohtori Akio posted:

didnt read

# ¿ Aug 17, 2023 12:31

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Ghost Leviathan posted:

There's a also a reason 'Intersectionality' suddenly stopped being used by a lot of people when leftists started saying 'Intersectionality includes class'.

this one it particular is perfect because do you think the 'Combahee River Collective' forgot that part?

# ¿ Aug 25, 2023 23:55

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Ohtori Akio posted:

didn't read that

# ¿ Aug 31, 2023 04:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 09:50

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

57001 posted:

exactly exactly. why engels on the family is so far ahead of his time -- the burden of raising well-adjusted, pro-social children necessarily involves mutli-generational households and minimal transfer of wealth. we are left with this remnant of parenthood that stems from inheritance law and now our whole society is hosed.

whatever happened to it takes a village miss hillary girl

i can't shut the gently caress up about it but in a way it's really not, a bunch of the utopian communes were organized around trying remove thingness by making child care a shared burden and breaking marriage as a property arrangement. and it's really not new, plato's republic from over two thousand years ago makes the point that children ought to raised by the society

# ¿ Nov 3, 2023 06:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Feminism] Death of the author's marriage