#81
I thought the meme was that future communism would be gay
#82

Meursault posted:

Ah, if there was one argument that will finally turn the masses in favor of full futurist cybercommunism or whatever, it's "sexuality isn't necessary"



sometimes it's hard being this correct

#83

Cuntessa_Markievicz posted:

lil green pills and skylark heres some clarification on the history of political lesbianism 9yeah its shelia jefferys but she was right there when it was all happening and embraced political lesbianism)



Oh my god i actually subscribe to this youtube channel! She posts good things sometimes but oh my god its so awful when she tries to make a meme or be funny in some way. Anyway this is interesting sheila jeffreys is cool. Its scary to think about how much can be lost in just one generation

#84
the guy who made 5000 posts about his fat retarded abusive wife who doesn't flush her turds might be on to something here...
#85

Meursault posted:

Ah, if there was one argument that will finally turn the masses in favor of full futurist cybercommunism or whatever, it's "sexuality isn't necessary"



: the rhizzone

#86
the only species that ended sex in their working classes are the eusocials
#87
#88
I was thinking of this thread in the deli earlier today bc that Ed Sheeran song "I'm in love with your body" was blearing and I was like God DamnIt™.. People criticize gangster rap for being about the marijuana and the fly sneakers and the AK-47s while every pop song is an advertisement screaming "MEET. A. WOMAN." at me. Anyway just my original contribution to the field of feminism, feel free to cite this
#89
[account deactivated]
#90
Good news, everyone, being single is now also queer https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/style/modern-love-is-there-something-odd-about-being-single.html

They changed the headline because people got mad

When I heard of an acquaintance who, running for local office, worried that her singlehood made her untrustworthy in voters’ eyes, I could empathize. There was something queer about being single: queer in the sense of “strange,” yes, but also in the sense that connotes a threat to the conventions around which most people arrange their lives.

#91
straights are gay pass it on
#92
#93
Ive been thinking about how women i know and love always seem to end up in relationships with men that arent worthy of their time and im just like "HE IS A WASTE OF SPACE STOP TORMENTING YOURSELF TO THESE HETERONORMATIVE IDEALS YOU CAN DO SO MUCH BETTER, IF YOU WANT KIDS THERES FUCKING SPERM BANKS" anyway i dont mouth this cause i dont want to be accused of being a man hating lesbian again, and that they might assume that im making a pass at them :/
#94

AZ_IZ_OT posted:

I thought the meme was that future communism would be gay


yeah that whole luxury gay space communism cant seem to figure out what actually is gay. literally everything but fucking and being with people of the same sex is gay now

#95
[account deactivated]
#96
[account deactivated]
#97
Benn thinking about the claim that "no woman would choose to date men", which may be true in certain circumstances BUT thats the thing with compulsive heterosexuality, women from the moment they are born are driven to believe that male validation is essential to them and their self-esteem/existence, and being a woman its taken me eons and I still struggle with the concept of appealing to men.
Compulsive heterosexuality is an epidemic when you look at how pornified western society is and now we have fucking 11 year old girls sending nudes via snapchat its deeply concerning.

I would fucking love to live without men but from birth, this feminized ideal of gender has been imposed on me, where Im expected to like and be liked by men and expected to eventually marry and all that jazz. Constantly submit to them in all areas not just sexually. Considering how male-dominated this board is, im not expecting everyone to get it immediately, but all these societal roles imposed on females from the fucking minutes they are born is fucking exhausting.
#98
[account deactivated]
#99

tpaine posted:

i mean, women have to survive after that because they have to carry the child and then raise them until they're independent, but according to even a basic understanding of nature a man can just die after he's done the deed with enough women to constitute a successful passing along of his steez



hm, i don't think that's all a man needs to do or does in practice to pass on the culture to the next generation

#100
[account deactivated]
#101
Tbh i was reading a bit about the history of polygyny in Europe and how the catholic church curbed it today and how things progressed with women and the catholic church.....

And I think men are the "dominant" sex is because while women give birth and carry potential children, they know the child is theirs, while for men they don;t know if they are the father for definite (unless they have a DNA test) because they arent the ones bearing pregnancy. Potentially this concept of male domination is in part due to this male primal fear that they may not be the only one in a woman's life, hence marriage and monogamy etc. Them you have Mick Jagger who has like 40 kids in a weird attempt at proving his dominance cause he views women as a conquest and clearly loves showing off his fertility in such a bizarre way.

Also theres this theory with radical feminism that societies pre-agriculture were a lot more egalitarian and with the introduction of agriculture shit hit the fan for women Women In Patriarchal Societies
The Origins Of Civilizations
#102

Cuntessa_Markievicz posted:

And I think men are the "dominant" sex is because while women give birth and carry potential children, they know the child is theirs, while for men they don;t know if they are the father for definite (unless they have a DNA test) because they arent the ones bearing pregnancy. Potentially this concept of male domination is in part due to this male primal fear that they may not be the only one in a woman's life, hence marriage and monogamy etc. Them you have Mick Jagger who has like 40 kids in a weird attempt at proving his dominance cause he views women as a conquest and clearly loves showing off his fertility in such a bizarre way.

engels talks about this kinda stuff a bit in "origin of the family..." iirc

#103
x

Edited by graphicalUSSRinterface ()

#104
e: i dont remember making this post and i didn't mean to, what the heck

Edited by lo ()

#105

Chthonic_Goat_666 posted:

Cuntessa_Markievicz posted:

And I think men are the "dominant" sex is because while women give birth and carry potential children, they know the child is theirs, while for men they don;t know if they are the father for definite (unless they have a DNA test) because they arent the ones bearing pregnancy. Potentially this concept of male domination is in part due to this male primal fear that they may not be the only one in a woman's life, hence marriage and monogamy etc. Them you have Mick Jagger who has like 40 kids in a weird attempt at proving his dominance cause he views women as a conquest and clearly loves showing off his fertility in such a bizarre way.

engels talks about this kinda stuff a bit in "origin of the family..." iirc


the domestication of animals and the breeding of herds had developed a hitherto unsuspected source of wealth and created entirely new social relations. Up to the lower stage of barbarism, permanent wealth had consisted almost solely of house, clothing, crude ornaments and the tools for obtaining and preparing food – boat, weapons, and domestic utensils of the simplest kind. Food had to be won afresh day by day. Now, with their herds of horses, camels, asses, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, the advancing pastoral peoples – the Semites on the Euphrates and the Tigris, and the Aryans in the Indian country of the Five Streams (Punjab), in the Ganges region, and in the steppes then much more abundantly watered of the Oxus and the Jaxartes – had acquired property which only needed supervision and the rudest care to reproduce itself in steadily increasing quantities and to supply the most abundant food in the form of milk and meat. All former means of procuring food now receded into the background; hunting, formerly a necessity, now became a luxury.

But to whom did this new wealth belong? Originally to the gens, without a doubt. Private property in herds must have already started at an early period, however. It is difficult to say whether the author of the so-called first book of Moses regarded the patriarch Abraham as the owner of his herds in his own right as head of a family community or by right of his position as actual hereditary head of a gens. What is certain is that we must not think of him as a property owner in the modern sense of the word. And it is also certain that at the threshold of authentic history we already find the herds everywhere separately owned by heads of families, as are the artistic products of barbarism – metal implements, luxury articles and, finally, the human cattle – the slaves.

For now slavery had also been invented. To the barbarian of the lower stage, a slave was valueless. Hence the treatment of defeated enemies by the American Indians was quite different from that at a higher stage. The men were killed or adopted as brothers into the tribe of the victors; the women were taken as wives or otherwise adopted with their surviving children. At this stage human labor-power still does not produce any considerable surplus over and above its maintenance costs. That was no longer the case after the introduction of cattle-breeding, metalworking, weaving and, lastly, agriculture. just as the wives whom it had formerly been so easy to obtain had now acquired an exchange value and were bought, so also with the forces of labor, particularly since the herds had definitely become family possessions. The family did not multiply so rapidly as the cattle. More people were needed to look after them; for this purpose use could be made of the enemies captured in war, who could also be bred just as easily as the cattle themselves.

Once it had passed into the private possession of families and there rapidly begun to augment, this wealth dealt a severe blow to the society founded on pairing marriage and the matriarchal gens. Pairing marriage had brought a new element into the family. By the side of the natural mother of the child it placed its natural and attested father, with a better warrant of paternity, probably, than that of many a “father” today. According to the division of labor within the family at that time, it was the man’s part to obtain food and the instruments of labor necessary for the purpose. He therefore also owned the instruments of labor, and in the event of husband and wife separating, he took them with him, just as she retained her household goods. Therefore, according to the social custom of the time, the man was also the owner of the new source of subsistence, the cattle, and later of the new instruments of labor, the slaves. But according to the custom of the same society, his children could not inherit from him. For as regards inheritance, the position was as follows:

At first, according to mother-right – so long, therefore, as descent was reckoned only in the female line – and according to the original custom of inheritance within the gens, the gentile relatives inherited from a deceased fellow member of their gens. His property had to remain within the gens. His effects being insignificant, they probably always passed in practice to his nearest gentile relations – that is, to his blood relations on the mother's side. The children of the dead man, however, did not belong to his gens, but to that of their mother; it was from her that they inherited, at first conjointly with her other blood relations, later perhaps with rights of priority; they could not inherit from their father, because they did not belong to his gens, within which his property had to remain. When the owner of the herds died, therefore, his herds would go first to his brothers and sisters and to his sister’s children, or to the issue of his mother’s sisters. But his own children were disinherited.

Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother-right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today. For this revolution – one of the most decisive ever experienced by humanity – could take place without disturbing a single one of the living members of a gens. All could remain as they were. A simple decree sufficed that in the future the offspring of the male members should remain within the gens, but that of the female should be excluded by being transferred to the gens of their father. The reckoning of descent in the female line and the matriarchal law of inheritance were thereby overthrown, and the male line of descent and the paternal law of inheritance were substituted for them. As to how and when this revolution took place among civilized peoples, we have no knowledge. It falls entirely within prehistoric times. But that it did take place is more than sufficiently proved by the abundant traces of mother-right which have been collected, particularly by Bachofen. How easily it is accomplished can be seen in a whole series of American Indian tribes, where it has only recently taken place and is still taking place under the influence, partly of increasing wealth and a changed mode of life (transference from forest to prairie), and partly of the moral pressure of civilization and missionaries. Of eight Missouri tribes, six observe the male line of descent and inheritance, two still observe the female. Among the Shawnees, Miamis and Delawares the custom has grown up of giving the children a gentile name of their father's gens in order to transfer them into it, thus enabling them to inherit from him.

Man“s innate casuistry! To change things by changing their names! And to find loopholes for violating tradition while maintaining tradition, when direct interest supplied sufficient impulse. (Marx.)

The result was hopeless confusion, which could only be remedied and to a certain extent was remedied by the transition to father-right. “In general, this seems to be the most natural transition.” (Marx.) For the theories proffered by comparative jurisprudence regarding the manner in which this change was effected among the civilized peoples of the Old World – though they are almost pure hypotheses see M. Kovalevsky, Tableau des origines et de l'evolution de la famille et de la propriete. Stockholm, 1890.

The overthrow of mother-right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children. This degraded position of the woman, especially conspicuous among the Greeks of the heroic and still more of the classical age, has gradually been palliated and glozed over, and sometimes clothed in a milder form; in no sense has it been abolished.

The establishment of the exclusive supremacy of the man shows its effects first in the patriarchal family, which now emerges as an intermediate form. Its essential characteristic is not polygyny, of which more later, but “the organization of a number of persons, bond and free, into a family, under paternal power, for the purpose of holding lands, and for the care of flocks and herds.... (In the Semitic form) the chiefs, at least, lived in polygamy.... Those held to servitude, and those employed as servants, lived in the marriage relation.” (Morgan, op. cit., p. 474)

Its essential features are the incorporation of unfree persons, and paternal power; hence the perfect type of this form of family is the Roman. The original meaning of the word “family” (familia) is not that compound of sentimentality and domestic strife which forms the ideal of the present-day philistine; among the Romans it did not at first even refer to the married pair and their children, but only to the slaves. Famulus means domestic slave, and familia is the total number of slaves belonging to one man. As late as the time of Gaius, the familia, id est patrimonium (family, that is, the patrimony, the inheritance) was bequeathed by will. The term was invented by the Romans to denote a new social organism, whose head ruled over wife and children and a number of slaves, and was invested under Roman paternal power with rights of life and death over them all.

This term, therefore, is no older than the iron-clad family system of the Latin tribes, which came in after field agriculture and after legalized servitude, as well as after the separation of Greeks and Latins. (Morgan, Op. cit., p. 478)

Marx adds:

The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus), but also serfdom, since from the beginning it is related to agricultural services. It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state.

Such a form of family shows the transition of the pairing family to monogamy. In order to make certain of the wife’s fidelity and therefore of the paternity of the children, she is delivered over unconditionally into the power of the husband; if he kills her, he is only exercising his rights.

#106

tears posted:

The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus), but also serfdom, since from the beginning it is related to agricultural services.


#107
Does anyone have a good definition of queerness they could share?

Or some short reading about it?
#108
[account deactivated]
#109
I'd like to hear your definition of Queer tpaine
#110
[account deactivated]
#111
[account deactivated]
#112

xipe posted:

Does anyone have a good definition of queerness they could share?

Or some short reading about it?



queerness is rebellion against sex by means of more sex

#113
[account deactivated]
#114
[account deactivated]
#115

tpaine posted:

I'm polygenderfucked and identify as biracially maxiqueer.



It was really satisfying to read your take on this comedy formula that every 14 year old has been using for years now

#116
[account deactivated]
#117
[account deactivated]
#118
you know that's not the criticism here
#119
[account deactivated]
#120
Offending the group you made up is not the issue,but rather that an ostensibly communist poster is making the 'i sexually identify as a helicopter'-joke that has been a mainstay of reactionary culture for years.

That's how I see it dunno about Skylark