Absolutely no one on the left is calling for a matriarchal hierarchy to replace the current patriarchy. As you yourself point out, any perceived instance when a woman seemingly has an advantage over a man (Men not being believed when they are the victims of domestic violence) is still a result of the patriarchy, there is no matriarchal oppression to oppose because it doesnt exist. Both men and women are victims of the patriarchy, women more so as the underclass, but men are forced into roles which reinforce that system or they are shunned by it. Opposition to patriarchy is that positive vision for the future that you want.
Oppositional defiance is not enough. The responsibility is on the left as a political movement to articulate a positive role for everyone in our new society. This isn't me personally wanting more but this is how the left is viewed from many outsiders looking in. The onus is on us to determine how we can incorporate the multiplicity of humanity into our fold and increase our own capacity to organize and socially reproduce ourselves as a political movement of universal emancipation.
Why? You aren't giving any specific material reason why opposing the patriarchy in favor of a society in which men and women are seen as equal isn't enough.
I simply dont understand what about Communism isnt a positive for men. Why do men need their own special role in society separate from women at all? Why isn't simply identifying as a man enough to be masculine? We are all proles, there's no need for men to be given a special subcategory relating to their gender in order for them to see social and economic progress as a benefit to themselves. The goal of any communist rhetoric around masculinity should be to educate men on how placing an extremely high value on their gender roles is unnecessary and not in their interests.
I agree. Men should NOT have a superior role and communism should be enough. However, in a transitional period, or our current period, there are many "men" who may agree with our politics but feel they have no place in it. Certainly a failure in our messaging so broadly interpreted throughout mainstream society that "cis white men" have no place in leftist politics is a massive failure on the left and we have alienated half of the human race. Short answer is the only way out of this is ALL together and it's on us to square that circle and make it digestible for the masses, not for them to subjectively make the right conclusions.
Certainly a failure in our messaging so broadly interpreted throughout mainstream society that “cis white men” have no place in leftist politics
I literally have no idea what you mean here. What are you defining as "mainstream society"? Because mainstream society in the west is extremely hostile to Communism, not due to its lack of rhetoric about masculinity, but because of a long standing propoganda war that's been ongoing for over 80 years.
This is entire discussion is centered on a twitter argument being platformed by twitch streamers who are economically incentivized to label their job talking into a camera about culture war takes as politics. There isnt a single person outside the online left who gives a damn about this supposed lack of acceptance for cis white men on the left. Cis white men are broadly hostile to communism because we are trained all our lives to see it as evil and to value capitalism. Undoing that propagandizing includes deprogramming the misogyny inherent to that worldview.
“cis white men” have no place in leftist politics is a massive failure on the left and we have alienated half of the human race.
How are we alienating cis white men by insisting they be open to critiquing their own beliefs? Communist must by definition be open to self critique. Also, cis white men are not "half the population" and insisting we just have to accept whatever misogynistic beliefs they currently hold because we need them to join us will absolutely alienate the other half of the population. You know, the part directly affected by violent misogyny? Men's feelings of inadequacy are just far less important than Women's physical and emotional safety.
it’s on us to square that circle and make it digestible for the masses, not for them to subjectively make the right conclusions.
Dont treat poor young men like they're stupid and need to have their reactionary views catered to. Men are just as capable as engaging with these concepts as anyone else. Its not the messaging of the left that drives alienated young white men rightward, its the material conditions within the imperial core which incentivizes them to maintain the current status quo.
Catering to a small subsect of men who obsess and blame women for their inability to have sex, and lying to them by promising that joining a political movement will give it to them is stupid. We are Communists, not fascists, lying about our aims and goals is antithetical to everything we believe in.
1st I don't Twitter so idk what you talk about. 2nd I don't care about petty bourgeois twitch streamers and furthermore idk what you are talking about 3rd I'm not trying to cater to anyone, especially a small online sub group. These are long standing views that have permeated throughout culture and discourse that they are known quantities unless you want to ignore them. We should not lie to anyone. WE ARE NOT FASCISTS. We should have a constructive role they can contribute to.
These are long standing views that have permeated throughout culture
The view that women should be subservient to men is a long standing cultural view, yes. Thats exactly why it needs to be ruthlessly excised from socialist and communist movements.
I literally have no idea what you mean here. What are you defining as “mainstream society”? Because mainstream society in the west is extremely hostile to Communism, not due to its lack of rhetoric about masculinity, but because of a long standing propoganda war that’s been ongoing for over 80 years.
I mean the mainstream view of "leftist politics" that gets the most air time is usually liberal (i.e. capitalist) feminism where you constantly see tweets (or even mainstream TV segments) saying things like "all cis-white dudes need to CHECK THEIR PRIVILEGE" or "I DON'T HAVE TO EDUCATE YOU" kind of rhetoric.
And tbh somebody who has no idea what the actual left is will be extremely alienated with this. I know I was on my journey from normie liberal. Even simply mentioning words like patriarchy or privilege triggered me. Like it or not there are certain buzzwords that carry certain connotations for those not already embedded in that particular communities. Like saying words like "colonialism," "patriarchy," "privilege," "white supremacy," etc. to normies will quickly turn them off. When I try to broach these topics in normal conversation, I'll look for other ways to say the same thing (e.g. I might say "guy dominated" when talking about things like the video game industry instead of saying that the owners of these companies are "cis-het white males with privilege"). If we are to be scientific socialists about this, we must always adapt our strategy to fit the particular material conditions we find ourselves in and not get stuck into idealist, dogmatic thinking.
So you want the left to frame its messaging based on right wing anti-feminist propoganda that gets blasted 24/7 by capitalist owned media sites and tv channels?
Not frame entirely but certainly adapt because no matter what term we come up with the right will try to demonize it. This means we must always be on our feet so to speak and be ready to adapt. It's not our fault but it's where we find ourselves, so it's either adapt or die.
Im sorry but you aren't going to argue communism into existence. it doesnt matter if you find the exact phrasing that makes the average person understand what you mean or not, rhetoric and messaging are not enough. You need to gain material benefits for the proletariat and that means uplifting women from the oppression they face within the patriarchy before it means catering to men's feelings. That means misogyny must be stamped out, no matter where or why it starts. If women aren't safe within the movement then its certainly not going to do anything for the entire proletariat.
I mean you can do both. It's not one or the other. In order for women to be safe within the movement you're going to need to address any reactionary views from existing members and potential members. And some of those people will need to be handled different with different approaches. It's just like union organizing. You can't just barge in and say "labor oppression must be stamped out!" You gotta talk to people, feel them out first, and talk to them where they are (without sacrificing your own values of course).
However, in a transitional period, or our current period, there are many “men” who may agree with our politics but feel they have no place in it.
It sucks that many materialist minded people suddenly become idealistic when it comes to this kind of thing. You're right, messaging matters and it would be interesting to see how actually existing socialist states handled these issues, instead of just saying "well in my view the left is already good, perfect, etc. on this issue."
First of all your assessment of masculinity under communism is to make de-emphasize it or to erase it completley "The goal of any communist rhetoric around masculinity should be to educate men on how placing an extremely high value on their gender roles is unnecessary and not in their interests." do you think the masses should simply DO THE WORK themselves and all voluntarily symbolically castrate theirselves before society to prove their revolutionary bonafides???? There is no home for masculinity on the left and it is OUR collective failure. There would be no quarrel with creating female, or any other identity space in leftist circles but there is a massive resistance to making male safe places. I don't really care or need that but it does expose our limitations largely due to ideological dogma and our failure to incorporate large swaths of the population.
Communism is a political and economic movement based on the uplifting of the proletariat, it is not a self help group for men. Masculinity and internet culture war takes about it are irrelevant to our economic class.
Women (and other non-male gendered people) do need uplifting because under a patriarchal system they are the underclass and face a unique type of oppression related to their gender roles. Men do not face oppression related to our gender. As stated above, men are forced into roles which maintain and support that system and are not actually free to express themselves, so destroying the patriarchal system would also benefit us, but in a different way than it would benefit women.
If you want to start an explicitly Socialist self help group for men which explores positive masculinity within a socialist context go ahead, no one is stopping you. But it is not relevant to the material goals of uplifting the oppressed masses.
do you think the masses should simply DO THE WORK themselves and all voluntarily symbolically castrate theirselves before society to prove their revolutionary bonafides
What the fuck are you even talking about here. Castrate theirselves? Im a man and I am not castrated if I dont fit other men's definition of masculinity.
If any of you would give me a material reason why "masculinity" as a concept actually matters to I could engage with that, but as it stands its just a nebulous concept related to patriarchal norms and I see no reason why it needs catered to.
You seeing it as a nebulous concept with no reason to cater to it shows your lack of taking this problem seriously and exemplifies bad faith. Would you apply the same rubric to femininity?
It's to do with Lacanian psychoanalysis Castration is the symbolic lack of an imaginary object. It is essentially tied to the symbolic order and to the central position given by the Oedipus complex. It refers to the symbolic debt in the register of the law. Because in your estimation ALL men are successfully integrated into a repressor relationship and should be symbolically disavowed or castrated to make real the gap between us
:zizek-preference: I have also read Zizek. You should consider broadening your horizons and try to read theorists who actually have experience with gender and sexuality before speaking on it with authority. Zizek absolutely sucks at it.
Oh yes. He's getting worse and worse by the day too. Not my main pull here though. And honestly he was stealing from Lacan, and Lacan from Althusser... but basically the anti communist left in cold war eastern Europe were Euro communist (soc dems). But we're loosing a engagement among young men and it needs to be taken seriously . I see no reason why we can't accommodate all.
Your just up on that Andrew Taint shit aint you? I can tell by your comments. Fuck that guy. I'm not near about any of that shit. Women and men collectively hold up the sky so help me visualize what this looks like in an equitable society.
Absolutely no one on the left is calling for a matriarchal hierarchy to replace the current patriarchy. As you yourself point out, any perceived instance when a woman seemingly has an advantage over a man (Men not being believed when they are the victims of domestic violence) is still a result of the patriarchy, there is no matriarchal oppression to oppose because it doesnt exist. Both men and women are victims of the patriarchy, women more so as the underclass, but men are forced into roles which reinforce that system or they are shunned by it. Opposition to patriarchy is that positive vision for the future that you want.
Oppositional defiance is not enough. The responsibility is on the left as a political movement to articulate a positive role for everyone in our new society. This isn't me personally wanting more but this is how the left is viewed from many outsiders looking in. The onus is on us to determine how we can incorporate the multiplicity of humanity into our fold and increase our own capacity to organize and socially reproduce ourselves as a political movement of universal emancipation.
Why? You aren't giving any specific material reason why opposing the patriarchy in favor of a society in which men and women are seen as equal isn't enough.
I simply dont understand what about Communism isnt a positive for men. Why do men need their own special role in society separate from women at all? Why isn't simply identifying as a man enough to be masculine? We are all proles, there's no need for men to be given a special subcategory relating to their gender in order for them to see social and economic progress as a benefit to themselves. The goal of any communist rhetoric around masculinity should be to educate men on how placing an extremely high value on their gender roles is unnecessary and not in their interests.
I agree. Men should NOT have a superior role and communism should be enough. However, in a transitional period, or our current period, there are many "men" who may agree with our politics but feel they have no place in it. Certainly a failure in our messaging so broadly interpreted throughout mainstream society that "cis white men" have no place in leftist politics is a massive failure on the left and we have alienated half of the human race. Short answer is the only way out of this is ALL together and it's on us to square that circle and make it digestible for the masses, not for them to subjectively make the right conclusions.
Im sorry but this is just nonsense.
I literally have no idea what you mean here. What are you defining as "mainstream society"? Because mainstream society in the west is extremely hostile to Communism, not due to its lack of rhetoric about masculinity, but because of a long standing propoganda war that's been ongoing for over 80 years.
This is entire discussion is centered on a twitter argument being platformed by twitch streamers who are economically incentivized to label their job talking into a camera about culture war takes as politics. There isnt a single person outside the online left who gives a damn about this supposed lack of acceptance for cis white men on the left. Cis white men are broadly hostile to communism because we are trained all our lives to see it as evil and to value capitalism. Undoing that propagandizing includes deprogramming the misogyny inherent to that worldview.
How are we alienating cis white men by insisting they be open to critiquing their own beliefs? Communist must by definition be open to self critique. Also, cis white men are not "half the population" and insisting we just have to accept whatever misogynistic beliefs they currently hold because we need them to join us will absolutely alienate the other half of the population. You know, the part directly affected by violent misogyny? Men's feelings of inadequacy are just far less important than Women's physical and emotional safety.
Dont treat poor young men like they're stupid and need to have their reactionary views catered to. Men are just as capable as engaging with these concepts as anyone else. Its not the messaging of the left that drives alienated young white men rightward, its the material conditions within the imperial core which incentivizes them to maintain the current status quo.
Catering to a small subsect of men who obsess and blame women for their inability to have sex, and lying to them by promising that joining a political movement will give it to them is stupid. We are Communists, not fascists, lying about our aims and goals is antithetical to everything we believe in.
1st I don't Twitter so idk what you talk about. 2nd I don't care about petty bourgeois twitch streamers and furthermore idk what you are talking about 3rd I'm not trying to cater to anyone, especially a small online sub group. These are long standing views that have permeated throughout culture and discourse that they are known quantities unless you want to ignore them. We should not lie to anyone. WE ARE NOT FASCISTS. We should have a constructive role they can contribute to.
The view that women should be subservient to men is a long standing cultural view, yes. Thats exactly why it needs to be ruthlessly excised from socialist and communist movements.
Yes women should not be subservient to men agreed
I mean the mainstream view of "leftist politics" that gets the most air time is usually liberal (i.e. capitalist) feminism where you constantly see tweets (or even mainstream TV segments) saying things like "all cis-white dudes need to CHECK THEIR PRIVILEGE" or "I DON'T HAVE TO EDUCATE YOU" kind of rhetoric.
And tbh somebody who has no idea what the actual left is will be extremely alienated with this. I know I was on my journey from normie liberal. Even simply mentioning words like patriarchy or privilege triggered me. Like it or not there are certain buzzwords that carry certain connotations for those not already embedded in that particular communities. Like saying words like "colonialism," "patriarchy," "privilege," "white supremacy," etc. to normies will quickly turn them off. When I try to broach these topics in normal conversation, I'll look for other ways to say the same thing (e.g. I might say "guy dominated" when talking about things like the video game industry instead of saying that the owners of these companies are "cis-het white males with privilege"). If we are to be scientific socialists about this, we must always adapt our strategy to fit the particular material conditions we find ourselves in and not get stuck into idealist, dogmatic thinking.
So you want the left to frame its messaging based on right wing anti-feminist propoganda that gets blasted 24/7 by capitalist owned media sites and tv channels?
Not frame entirely but certainly adapt because no matter what term we come up with the right will try to demonize it. This means we must always be on our feet so to speak and be ready to adapt. It's not our fault but it's where we find ourselves, so it's either adapt or die.
Im sorry but you aren't going to argue communism into existence. it doesnt matter if you find the exact phrasing that makes the average person understand what you mean or not, rhetoric and messaging are not enough. You need to gain material benefits for the proletariat and that means uplifting women from the oppression they face within the patriarchy before it means catering to men's feelings. That means misogyny must be stamped out, no matter where or why it starts. If women aren't safe within the movement then its certainly not going to do anything for the entire proletariat.
I mean you can do both. It's not one or the other. In order for women to be safe within the movement you're going to need to address any reactionary views from existing members and potential members. And some of those people will need to be handled different with different approaches. It's just like union organizing. You can't just barge in and say "labor oppression must be stamped out!" You gotta talk to people, feel them out first, and talk to them where they are (without sacrificing your own values of course).
It sucks that many materialist minded people suddenly become idealistic when it comes to this kind of thing. You're right, messaging matters and it would be interesting to see how actually existing socialist states handled these issues, instead of just saying "well in my view the left is already good, perfect, etc. on this issue."
Thank you much. Not for me but for the masses
First of all your assessment of masculinity under communism is to make de-emphasize it or to erase it completley "The goal of any communist rhetoric around masculinity should be to educate men on how placing an extremely high value on their gender roles is unnecessary and not in their interests." do you think the masses should simply DO THE WORK themselves and all voluntarily symbolically castrate theirselves before society to prove their revolutionary bonafides???? There is no home for masculinity on the left and it is OUR collective failure. There would be no quarrel with creating female, or any other identity space in leftist circles but there is a massive resistance to making male safe places. I don't really care or need that but it does expose our limitations largely due to ideological dogma and our failure to incorporate large swaths of the population.
Communism is a political and economic movement based on the uplifting of the proletariat, it is not a self help group for men. Masculinity and internet culture war takes about it are irrelevant to our economic class.
Women (and other non-male gendered people) do need uplifting because under a patriarchal system they are the underclass and face a unique type of oppression related to their gender roles. Men do not face oppression related to our gender. As stated above, men are forced into roles which maintain and support that system and are not actually free to express themselves, so destroying the patriarchal system would also benefit us, but in a different way than it would benefit women.
If you want to start an explicitly Socialist self help group for men which explores positive masculinity within a socialist context go ahead, no one is stopping you. But it is not relevant to the material goals of uplifting the oppressed masses.
What the fuck are you even talking about here. Castrate theirselves? Im a man and I am not castrated if I dont fit other men's definition of masculinity.
If any of you would give me a material reason why "masculinity" as a concept actually matters to I could engage with that, but as it stands its just a nebulous concept related to patriarchal norms and I see no reason why it needs catered to.
You seeing it as a nebulous concept with no reason to cater to it shows your lack of taking this problem seriously and exemplifies bad faith. Would you apply the same rubric to femininity?
Removed by mod
Define this. Because all I see here is some fascist rhetoric about not being man enough.
You dont need a penis to be a masculine or a man, so explain what the fuck you are talking about or fuck off.
It's to do with Lacanian psychoanalysis Castration is the symbolic lack of an imaginary object. It is essentially tied to the symbolic order and to the central position given by the Oedipus complex. It refers to the symbolic debt in the register of the law. Because in your estimation ALL men are successfully integrated into a repressor relationship and should be symbolically disavowed or castrated to make real the gap between us
:zizek-preference: I have also read Zizek. You should consider broadening your horizons and try to read theorists who actually have experience with gender and sexuality before speaking on it with authority. Zizek absolutely sucks at it.
Oh yes. He's getting worse and worse by the day too. Not my main pull here though. And honestly he was stealing from Lacan, and Lacan from Althusser... but basically the anti communist left in cold war eastern Europe were Euro communist (soc dems). But we're loosing a engagement among young men and it needs to be taken seriously . I see no reason why we can't accommodate all.
:jesse-wtf:
:jesse-wtf:
Look back the fuck off. I disengaged for a reason and I seriously have no fucking clue what your problem is
Ok fair enough. You seem like a good person let's just call it a night. Good night comrade!
Removed by mod
Oof, bad bait
Oof bad baiter
Your just up on that Andrew Taint shit aint you? I can tell by your comments. Fuck that guy. I'm not near about any of that shit. Women and men collectively hold up the sky so help me visualize what this looks like in an equitable society.