https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAt3i4NdUG4
Gender is the support structure of male supremacy in that 'masculinity' is the behaviour of male supremacy and 'femininity' is the behaviour of female subordination. Gender is not sex. Gender is a tool of social control used to maintain a sex caste system.
Those who visibly resist this system are targets for violent repression - eg corrective rape, beatings and murder. Overwhelmingly the perpetrators of this repression are violent males. The system being maintained by this repression is the patriarchal sex caste system.
In order to participate in public spaces women campaigned for sex segregated bathing and toilet facilities. Males who do not conform to gender are targets for male violence, therefore using male toilet facilities puts them at immediate and enormous risk.
The concept of 'gender identity' being equal to the material reality of biological sex means a male bodied person can become a woman through identifying with the patriarchal behavioural set 'femininity'.
Women are at a constant risk of sexualised male violence. Legislating for self declared 'gender identity' that then allows males access to female toilet and bathing facilities creates a conflict of interest such that gender non-conforming males can be safe in an environment where violent males will not assault them, but women who exist in a patriarchal culture are then expected to bear the added risk of being exposed to male violence in an environment where they are extremely vulnerable.
The idea that gender is an innate trait not linked to biological domination/exploitation, that there is such a thing as 'cisgender' then leads to the notion that women 'identify' with their own suppression, that we are all free floating individuals that untouched by the chemical bath of patriarchal conditioning we've been submerged in since birth.
roseweird posted:when i brush my teeth after lunch because i know it's weird to do that in a public bathroom'
Gross
gyrofry posted:The next time I see mentadent in the toothpaste aisle I will truly understand pvtjoker
mentadent was cool because it was 2 different tooth products that combined when you pressed the dispenser and was designed for people with disposable income who may want to let you know just how well off they are when you are visiting their house and they can afford mentadent, american crew, and other products.
"gender isn't sex it's just a series of social conventions based directly on and correlating directly with sexual difference" is exactly right. i'm reading the history of the patriarchy right now by gerder lerner and she is pretty great, she traces back to mesapotamia and talks about how patriarchy is certainly one of the earliest, if not the first oppression, pre-dating capitalism by loads of (at least 4) years, so when people talk about a smashing of capitalism leading to a smashing of patriarchy-well, no, definitely not. if someone could show me a communist country, present or historical, where women make up 50%+ of the party i will be happy to see it, and still maintain that is the minority. there was a really cool doc on china someone recommended on here that i watched with my gf last night about the day to day running of datong, and in all the bits where they were voting on shit there were no women, none. c'mon, we hold up half the traffic, the fuck's going on.
there's no evidence of there ever being a matriarchal society, just societies where women had some kind of say. in recorded history there's never been a time where women have had as much social or political capital as men. i don't feel like feminism is a side issue-patriarchy is, if not the root, one of the deepest and strongest-inheritance down the male line, male control of reproduction, this stuff is so old we're bored of talking about it. it is the backbone of capitalism! we need to shatter its spine!
gender, the social conventions based directly on and correlating directly with sexual difference, then matters, in that the current "discourse" around it completely ignores biological sex and the history and reality of it. women remain second class citizens. i'm a honky lesbian who only leaves my flat when necessary, i am fine. globally tho. it is disheartening that issues relating to sex are relegated to "where do we shit" or "this line on people not being able to shit where they want will hinder recruitment in this communist party" that was never what this was about. in the 50s SRS was discovered/invented and in the last 10 years the trans/non-binary thing has reached craze levels. why is everyone so keen to take the individualist stance and believe everything that comes along with it? can no one see that it's actually deeply conservative?
i guess this is the hill i chose to die on. balls
roseweird posted:but capitalism does not require patriarchy
Dont troll
roseweird posted:overfire posted:history of the patriarchy right now by gerder lerner and she is pretty great, she traces back to mesapotamia and talks about how patriarchy is certainly one of the earliest, if not the first oppression, pre-dating capitalism by loads of (at least 4) years
i mean to get right to the point it effectively predates humanity because it is the direct expression of biological sexual difference in primates, which is pretty frustrating to think about, and personally i haven't found that i have access to the tools required to address it directly or with sufficient force, so i have tried to turn my attention to issues that i think i can more effectively deal with in my lifetime. i've certainly talked about it a lot here in the past, though. anyway i agree and i hope you'll continue to share your thoughts as your thinking on these issues develops. i disagree only on one main point:
capitalism and patriarchy work great together because patriarchy commodifies women's bodies and has done so for all of recorded history. but capitalism does not require patriarchy. women are extremely capable and willing of exploiting each other either through direct force, financial manipulation, or many other means, and they don't require the example or inducement of patriarchy to do it. patriarchy is not the basis of capitalism, nor of economic exploitation generally. many feminists have asserted this, but i have never read any historical evidence or strong theoretical support for it. sex is not the primary basis of class division, though many or most class divisions in most societies now and historically are gendered. struggle against sex and class struggle are connected but neither can be simplified to a factor of the other.
anyway, you're upvoting the person saying "gender is not sex, it's just designed to uphold a sexual caste system", but then responding to me to say, "but it's actually biological sex that's important and we're ignoring it." i don't know if you meant to agree with the position that "gender is not sex", but if you did, these positions are not compatible. gender is the direct expression of sexual difference. men did not have to invent a system to oppress women—nature granted it to them.
i'm not sure that i'd agree that gender is naturally occurring. or, more to say i genuinely don't know what a world without gender would look like, and would be fascinated to see, but i will say that gender is stretched to funhouse mirror proportions and difference is exaggerated in the most extreme ways-what are masculinity rituals and aggression but "natural" differences taken to their logical extreme, what is breast augmentation and makeup but the artificial exaggeration of these differences physical differences-and women are reduced to their physicality. If the difference was so large, would it be culturally necessary to stretch these differences further? to fetishise them, to devote scientific studies to finding out why Men and WOmen are so different? (it's bc cavement raped women bc they were stronger and women are nice bc they have babies pass it on)
capitalism doesn't require patriarchy, capitalism will just use whatever it has to gain sweet, beautiful, intoxicating money, it is an opportunist. the logic of patriarchy, which is very old, simply leads, like a shitty tributary, to capitalism-greedy, rapacious, violent, obsessed with private property, pillage, ownership, resources, objects.
i would disagree that women do not require the example or inducement of patriarchy to oppress each other-example implies they are free individuals to choose as they please-to an extent, as we all are, constrained by social forces. patriarchy is an amniotic tank, i really feel like the current flop in feminism has made us all feel like it's just there and you ignore it or it isn't that bad but it really is pretty shit. even in our sham governments they can only be bothered sticking tokens in and world's near certain destruction has had men at the helm the entire time.what would have happened if women had a say in the future of the planet? who knows. maybe a load of old shit. we will never know bc the world is hurtling into environmental meltdown and all women, and also men, will perish and maybe the tartigrades after us will build a society found the perfect workers state, who knows
overfire posted:capitalism doesn't require patriarchy,
SmdH yall mofuccas need to read some federici
it also heavily utilises patriarchy now. i do, hypothetically, think that capitalism, as a viral opportunist, could manage to exist in a not yet existing state without patriarchy but the more i type that sentence the less i believe it
sex is hard