babyhueypnewton posted:yeah a picture of two muscled dudes fucking each other is feminism! lets include a girl in the back crying cause we turned that straight guy gay lol! I love the phallus!
NoFreeWill posted:does anyone know what chauvinism means cause i've never heard it definied or used coherently by anyone on print or out loud.
I was just thinking it's better than most of its synonyms that are more fashionable now (bigotry, prejudice and all the more specific prejudice-terms when their meanings are stretched)
Are men all equally desirable? Do women have no tendency toward polygamy? The good anthropologist does not raise such questions. A fortiori: why are men not objects of exchange among women? It is because women’s bodies-through their use, consumption, and circulation-provide for the condition making social life and culture possible, although they remain an unknown “infrastructure” of the elaboration of that social life and culture. The exploitation of the matter that has been sexualized female is so integral a part of our sociocultural horizon that there is no way to interpret it except within this horizon.
In still other words: all the systems of exchange that organize patriarchal societies and all the modalities of productive work that are recognized, valued, and rewarded in these societies are men’s business. The production of women, signs, and commodities is always referred back to men (when a man buys a girl, he “pays” the father or the brother, not the mother … ), and they always pass from one man to another, from one group of men to another. The work force is thus always assumed to be masculine, and “products” are objects to be used, objects of transaction among men alone.
Which means that the possibility of our social life, of our culture, depends upon a ho(m)mo-sexual monopoly? The law that orders our society is the exclusive valorization of men’s needs/desires, of exchanges among men. What the anthropologist calls the passage from nature to culture thus amounts to the institution of the reign of hom(m)o-sexuality. Not in an “immediate” practice, but in its “social” mediation. From this point on, patriarchal societies might be interpreted as societies functioning in the mode of “semblance.” The value of symbolic and imaginary productions is superimposed upon, and even substituted for, the value of relations of material, natural, and corporal (re)production.
In this new matrix of History, in which man begets man as his own likeness, wives, daughters, and sisters have value only in that they serve as the possibility of, and potential benefit in, relations among men. The use of and traffic in women subtend and uphold the reign of masculine hom(m)o-sexuality, even while they maintain that hom(m)o-sexuality in speculations, mirror games, identifications, and more or less rivalrous appropriations, which defer its real practice. Reigning everywhere, although prohibited in practice, hom(m)o-sexuality is played out through the bodies of women, matter, or sign, and heterosexuality has been up to now just an alibi for the smooth workings of man’s relations with himself, of relations among men.
—Luce Irigaray, "Women on the Market", 1978 (emphases mine) (no PomMo)
of course, active/"practically" homosexual men are still categorically responsible for the oppression of women; this is a given, Piven. yet the exclusive focus on these behaviors as representing late-bourgeois decadence is simply unnecessary, redundant in fact, stupid as well, i mean... in examinations of the historical persecution of homosexuality, "deviance" is one stated culpa of this class, the failure to uphold to the reproductive mandate, et cetera... but more rarely analysed is the position of the Male Homo in the chain of signification as constituting in-himself the internal contradiction, or inconsistency, or insufficiency within the path of heterosexual desire. in other words, homosexuality reveals the Truth of the patriarchal sexual condition, and herein lies the impetus for the dominant drive to extinguish such a structural revelation.
Sigh,
—Diddy
Edited by eccentricdeathmongrel ()
the poste
roseweird posted:or could you explain why you believe that men oppress women categorically by nature of their existence as men and not situationally by nature of their sexual desire and ability/intent to order society around those desires
I cant speak for anybody else but ill admit there's an element of subjugation inherent in the male/female dynamic, but similar dynamics exist, if only potentially, in the female/male dynamic. I haven't read much Althusser, but his work on inescapable alienation seems apt to me in relation to oppression/alienation from a "real" self.
Wouldn't an orthodox Marxist position be that the power differential is what governs the degree to which truly exploitative arrangements occur?
c_man posted:babyhueypnewton posted:roseweird posted:or could you explain why you believe that men oppress women categorically by nature of their existence as men and not situationally by nature of their sexual desire and ability/intent to order society around those desires
I was going to say that the category of 'male' is a social creation that only has meaning as an oppressive structure, but you already beat me to it by stating "biology" is responsible for everything bad. do you also believe homosexuality is biological and not a western ideology based on a certain biopolitical regime of 'identity'?
these guys lift
fleights posted:these guys lift
i will never be as Powerful as those guys unless my friend who i lift with decides he likes going to the gym in the morning again
eccentricdeathmongrel posted:yo fuck you bhpn. that post was primarily opposed to your position. dickhead. was that a passive-aggressive upvote? i bet you didn't even read the post. Fuckass Skronk
i also upvoted that post, in a non-passive-aggressive way, because itr was Good, and thought-provoking. Thankyou for shareing
DM: In much of the work now being done on the subject of race and sexuality, there is the suggestion that the very practice of institutionalizing or mainstreaming queer itself functions in such a way as to occult the nationalistic/civilizational (racist) components of queer practice: it is as if non-heteronormative positions are somehow so dazzling that they can blind us to their divisive tendencies. Can you comment on this sense in which the queering of dominant formations appears to go hand in hand with a racial myopia?
JP: The ascendancy of queer is not just coincidentally occurring in relation to certain racial politics but is contingent upon them. We also know that any single-axis identity politics is invariably going to coagulate around the most conservative, normative construction of that identity, foreclosing the complexities of class, citizenship status, gender, nation, and perhaps most importantly in the context of very recent events, religion. One example is the implications of the 2003 Lawrence decision that decriminalized sodomy between consenting adults on the federal level in the U.S. While a plethora of queer and feminist scholars deftly and cogently critique the limits of the ruling in terms of its protection of privacy, intimacy, normative kinship forms, and property over queer sex — in other words, the domestication of queer sex — they predominantly do so by assessing the impact of the decision on LGBTIQ subjects. But the implications of Lawrence extend far beyond its obvious sexual referents. I reread the case through its import for surveillance, racial profiling, detention, and deportation, looking at its impact on terrorist populations and the reorganization of Muslim sexualities and kinship patterns. I think this kind of rereading, what Siobhan Somerville calls a ’sideways reading’, is a potent tactic for destabilizing a homophobia vs. racism binary.
-Q&A with Jasbir Puar
Themselves posted:hey i made this post an hour ago (below) but then i said something about dialectical materialism and a girl came on teamspeak where im at and i tried to flirt with her by talking a lot and projecting myself onto her like an object but i did ask her a few questions after running down the entire history of marxian philosophers (including the frankfurt school) starting from hegel to MLM and then my friend said he had to go and muted himself
the poste
.custom231052{color:#CFEEF7 !important; background-color:#E80C64 !important; }roseweird postedr could you explain why you believe that men oppress women categorically by nature of their existence as men and not situationally by nature of their sexual desire and ability/intent to order society around those desires
I cant speak for anybody else but ill admit there's an element of subjugation inherent in the male/female dynamic, but similar dynamics exist, if only potentially, in the female/male dynamic. I haven't read much Althusser, but his work on inescapable alienation seems apt to me in relation to oppression/alienation from a "real" self.
Wouldn't an orthodox Marxist position be that the power differential is what governs the degree to which truly exploitative arrangements occur?
Althusser murdered his wife, bro.
babyhueypnewton posted:patriarchy (which interpellates all ideology and of course is itself interpellated in the last instance by class)
i don't think this word means what you think it means
conec posted:gyrofry stop copying me~!~!~!
NoFreeWill posted:Themselves posted:hey i made this post an hour ago (below) but then i said something about dialectical materialism and a girl came on teamspeak where im at and i tried to flirt with her by talking a lot and projecting myself onto her like an object but i did ask her a few questions after running down the entire history of marxian philosophers (including the frankfurt school) starting from hegel to MLM and then my friend said he had to go and muted himself
the poste
.custom231052{color:#CFEEF7 !important; background-color:#E80C64 !important; }roseweird posted
I cant speak for anybody else but ill admit there's an element of subjugation inherent in the male/female dynamic, but similar dynamics exist, if only potentially, in the female/male dynamic. I haven't read much Althusser, but his work on inescapable alienation seems apt to me in relation to oppression/alienation from a "real" self.
Wouldn't an orthodox Marxist position be that the power differential is what governs the degree to which truly exploitative arrangements occur?
Althusser murdered his wife, bro.
ad homonem
roseweird posted:babyhueypnewton posted:it's extreme effectiveness on dividing the left forces
maybe if you werent such a gay hating freak it would be less effective
if only those muslims/russians/koreans/cubans/africans/afro-americans werent such gay hating freaks we wouldnt need to bomb them!
babyhueypnewton posted:no one is singling out male homosexuality as worse than patriarchy, it is simply an aspect of patriarchy (which interpellates all ideology and of course is itself interpellated in the last instance by class). however the hyper-usage of homosexuality by the Obama administration and it's extreme effectiveness on dividing the left forces us to take this out of the abstract fight against male oppression and directly confront the oppressive function of male-homosexual rights
deadken posted:babyhueypnewton posted:patriarchy (which interpellates all ideology and of course is itself interpellated in the last instance by class)
i don't think this word means what you think it means
i sometimes confuse interpellation with overdetermination or discourse, stop thinking you're above debate when you've shown no knowledge of dialectical materialism