discipline posted:

wow I just read about that attack in portland. disgusting.

no platform for fascists or cissexists.

getfiscal posted:

i banned saltybarf or whatever her name was and released all the men from detention.

cool, time to demod

libelous_slander posted:

you should start a canadian political webcomic called Mayor Of Canada

just watch me.

SariBari posted:

Hahahehe rape is funny come rub my tummy le cool boys club.

I guess probably should have been more clear with my question. A lot of radfems object to pre-op transwomen using women's bathrooms as they see it as a violation(since they still have penises), and some have even gone so far as to call it a form of rape. I was wondering if you agreed with that sentiment.

marimite posted:

gyrofry posted:

what do you all think about MIM's position that all first world wimmin are members of the gender aristocracy and are actually male-gendered even if biologically otherwise

I think to understand what gender is, we must first state clearly the nature of its political source, partriarchy. Patriarchy is in its essence a breeding program. Most people vaguely understand eugenics as something that began as a pseudo-science in 19th century Europe, but it really began when patriarchal pastoralists invaded communities of productive women, enslaved them, and then breed them like their animals. Before this women were the primary producers of food and were the main source of inventions: pottery to store surplus and digging implements to till the earth. Contrary to myths of the alpha ape being the source of all human relations, the hunting performed by men was a marginal activity that provided for a small minority of subsistence needs. It was not productive of society, but dependent on it. It was not until they discovered the art of breeding that they were able to establish an independent existence from women, and eventually, by these means, come to dominate them. And so patriarchy began with women being spoils of war and then developed as men discovered more and more sophisticated arrangements of trading women, until this developed into modern patriarchal capitalism.

So if we accept this definition of partriarchy as a eugenics program, we can see that while gender and sex are different, they are related insofar as gender is mapped onto a politics of reproduction. This has the convenience of cutting through all kinds of postmodern claptrap in which gender can't be defined. So if we apply this definition to most of the first world, simultaneously experiencing vast material wealth and demographic collapse, we can come to couple conclusions: first, patriarchy is rapidly deteriorating on its own terms and second, as corollary to the first conclusion, women are no longer necessarily forced to breed. But wait a second here, if biological females are no longer breeding is it appropriate to still call them women? Maybe, if they redefined what it means to be a "woman" by means of an alternative breeding program. But this is NOT what women have done, they have simply inserted themselves into the role of men without seeking a change in the structure of society. And this of course includes breeding, whose locus has now shifted to the third world. So I would agree with this conclusion. Though really, this situation is short lived. The moment the inevitable resurgence of nationalism in the first world happens, all of these "men" will become "women" again.

I've heard this story before but i've never seen any evidence for it. Is it just another myth created to illustrate that gender relations are the product of social conditions? Or is there evidence pastoralist women have more restricted social roles compared to agriculturalists, and can we trace modern institutions back to pastoralist cultures? I know it's a convenient story but there are plenty of real examples of societies with inverted gender roles so I don't know why anyone bothered making up these grand narratives of history.

Also I'm a bit confused by your point on eugenics. Your story seems to go like this: Animal Husbandry -->Human breeding?--->Patriarchy and this progression doesn't make logical sense to me.

SariBari posted:

tpaine, two women were assaulted and driven out of a conference this weekend by "transactivists". these people like to dox women and assault them in public leave this to the vagina havers/wanna be vagina-havers.

magic markers... damn those transppl clearly have no decency.

SariBari posted:

HenryKrinkle posted:

SariBari posted:

tpaine, two women were assaulted and driven out of a conference this weekend by "transactivists". these people like to dox women and assault them in public leave this to the vagina havers/wanna be vagina-havers.

magic markers... damn those transppl clearly have no decency.

i like that people keep trying to reduce it to markers and throwing food at people but when it the last time you saw organizers of a conference think it appropriate to disagree with someone's ideas by approaching their table and screaming them, trying to have them ejected, and then defacing their materials? why do you think the intimidation of these women is so funny given that their organization was allowed by the organizers in the first place?

fair enough.

i just found that one blog post headline kind of funny because it was trying to emphasize the seriousness of the intimidation (which I'm not doubting) and felt the need to mention the magic markers.

but yeah it's really shitty that things like this happen.

HenryKrinkle posted:

fair enough.

i just found that one blog post headline kind of funny because it was trying to emphasize the seriousness of the intimidation (which I'm not doubting) and felt the need to mention the magic markers.

but yeah it's really shitty that things like this happen.

you're right, it does read funny but it's pretty scary bc so few women are in political spaces on the left already. it was insane to see the amount of people who said that radical feminists should expect violence after this incident. it creeps me out to think some of them will be at events, demos, or meetings i might attend.

btw DGR's "official side" just got released if anyone wants to read, it's long as heck but a dignified take for something that was petty and got nuts. i'll put behind tags.

Squalid posted:

We can trace lots of modern gender relationships back pretty far. Christian monogamy traces back to Roman law and it seems to me that it was instituted solely to suit patriarchal needs. One of the big reasons Romans hated polygyny was that it seriously complicates inheritance, so by reducing secondary wives to concubinage you can rationalize inheritance at the expense of women, who now have reduced social standing and fewer prospects for their children. The social standing of mistresses continues to degrade as christians get more serious about monogamy, despite its notable absence in the Bible, and by the middle ages they had lost any formal social recognition of their relationship. I'm not sure how this relates to a pastoralist-agriculturalist split but at the very least this is an example of an agriculturalists imposing their gender relations on pastoralists for (what seem to me) patriarchal reasons.

Monogamy is not absent in the Bible. Matthew 19 clearly advocates monogamy. Adam and Eve were monogamous, Noah and his wife were monogamous, Abraham and Sarah were monogamous, Isaac and Rebekah, Moses married only once, David and his wife were monogamous (although he once engaged in an extramarital affair, but it was viewed as a sin). Solomon had many wives and it was viewed as sinful. Much of the polygamy in Genesis (such as Jacob/Israel's) was a cause of strife. The Holy Family was monogamous, Paul and Peter both wrote in support of it.

One of the women was visibly triggered.