Christian Feminist Socialist hipster vs Libertarian Atheist MRA

[TNF]

While I could probably look past the religious delusions of the first candidate, the fact that said candidate identifies as a 'socialist-feminist' (a contradiction in terms, as feminism is ultimately opposed to the notion of class struggle) probably means that his or her politics probably lean toward reformism. I guess if that wasn't the case, and they were just confused about what the term 'feminism' means (falsely associating it with the idea of equality between the sexes and women's liberation, which I am of course, for), I could extend support to that candidate, although again it wouldn't be without a bit of grumbling on my part.

[TNF]

Both should be eliminated from their respective movements(ie the Christian and the MRA)

So Christians are automatically as bad as MRAs?

I mean if you believe that public policy should be guided by facts rather than religious delusions and appeals to a deity, then yes, they're on the same level of dumb, because neither or them have any overlap with reality in any real sense.

[TNF]

How on earth can you describe my views on sex and gender as 'retrograde'? Because I don't buy into the pseudo-radical, bourgeois lifestylism that has come to substitute itself for an actual politics of women's liberation? As I posted in the 'Opinion of Third Wave Feminism' thread, I reject feminism as an ideology because feminism necessarily counterposes itself to the realization of socialism by removing the crucial crux needed to achieve it (class struggle) and substituting a struggle between the sexes for it. In no way do I deny the subjugation of women or deny that special remedies will be needed to address the issues that women face not only as workers, but as second-class citizens.

What I do deny is that the substitution of feminism and pseudo-women's liberation politics is going to deliver either equality of the sexes or actual women's liberation. One can prattle on all day long about the need to establish neo-Victorian sex mores or use this or that kind of language or insert trigger warnings here or there, but at the end of the day, none of that brings women a step closer to equality with men and none of that brings women a step closer to being freed from the slavery of the domestic hearth or the slavery of wage labor. The fact is that the politics embraced under the aegis of feminism are at best the politics of despair and defeat (as they ultimately start from the point that women can never really be freed from domestic slavery and ask society to merely adjust their language or promote women so as to lessen the inequalities that are looked upon as impassable) and at worst the politics of a certain stratum of petty bourgeois opportunists that want access to the levers of power themselves so that they, too may become exploiters of the working class and oppressors of the populace, male, female, and genderqueer alike.

The idea that subordinating race and sex (among other special oppression) to the class struggle leaves little room for actual analysis of both is laughable, and I'm not sure why you assume that I'm opposed to researching either or developing a special analysis for either one. The problem with your point of view here is that it imagines both race and sex can exist outside of the class struggle, which is patently absurd. Race as a social construct is itself a product of the development of capitalism, and sex as a subject for special oppression is as old as class society itself. I don't advocate independent action on either because (1) without a class struggle analysis of racial/sexual oppression, you're going to make mistakes; and (2) without connecting the struggles of the specially oppressed to the working class as a whole, nothing aside from window-dressing reforms/partial victories (that will be rolled back at the first opportunity) or co-option (as has been the case with #BlackLivesMatter as of late) are the inevitable results of such efforts. I am not a believer in polyvanguardism or identity politics, but that doesn't mean that the working class should not be mobilized on issues that effect specially oppressed segments of it or of society, provided that such action can lead to an effective building of social solidarity among such groups and provide a way forward for the eventual overthrow of capitalism.

My opinions on these issues are developed in part from what I read elsewhere, but they are by no means something I simply digest and accept without question. I am constantly striving to improve my understanding of issues such as these, and have such have held in the past different views and may yet in the future develop them further or discard what I ultimately find through the course of personal experience to be erroneous or unhelpful. But I assure you that my views are my own insofar as they themselves reflect a lot of personal reflection on my part.

[TNF]

While I could probably look past the religious delusions of the first candidate, the fact that said candidate identifies as a 'socialist-feminist' (a contradiction in terms, as feminism is ultimately opposed to the notion of class struggle) probably means that his or her politics probably lean toward reformism. I guess if that wasn't the case, and they were just confused about what the term 'feminism' means (falsely associating it with the idea of equality between the sexes and women's liberation, which I am of course, for), I could extend support to that candidate, although again it wouldn't be without a bit of grumbling on my part.

Wait, what?

Feminism posits that the struggle for man over domination of woman, or the struggle of woman to free herself from the domination of man, is the central struggle in human society. This is absurd because it of course denies that, say, working class women have as much or more in common with their lovers, brothers, and fathers in terms of being exploited and (in their case) doubly oppressed within class society, preferring the bogus alternative idea of all women being equally oppressed sisters suffering from an equally solidified community of men.

I am not a feminist because I don't believe that the solution to the inequality of the sexes is to make more women CEOs or Presidents of imperialist countries. I believe the solution is to abolish those institutions which oppress both men and women of the working classes and go further in eradicating those which subjugate women in particular (i.e. the nuclear family and the domestic slavery that comes along with it and organized religion).

[TNF]

I'm sorry to have poorly represented the degree of consideration you put into your views on this.

I understand said views better now and no longer think that they are retrograde, although I'd still rather you didn't use the rhetoric to communicate them that you do a lot of the time.

No harm done. Unfortunately an Internet forum doesn't typically lend well to allowing one to flesh out one's position on a particular issue, given the time involved with doing so and a general lack of nuance that pervades this particular forum.

Likewise, I'll be the first to admit that the rhetoric I often choose to utilize in such instances is imprecise, which is something I need to work on. I'll do my best to improve upon that in the future.

[TNF]

Modern feminism puts a lot of emphasis on intersectionality, so it does take into account class (as well as race). As for which kind of inequality is more "fundamental", it doesn't matter much in practical terms.

It does matter, because you the subjugation of women is predicated on the division of human beings into classes. Without class society, you wouldn't have male chauvinism and the subjugation and super-exploitation of women.

Also, intersectionality is fundamentally incorrect in that it proceeds from a standpoint that social class is an oppressed 'identity' much like that of women or blacks or [insert identity here]. While there is certainly class prejudice (and I would obviously not deny this, having been on occasion referred to as 'trailer trash,' 'white trash', etc.), working class people are not discriminated against in the same way as blacks or women (i.e. because of their class position), and thus that does not define how the working class as a social category comes into being or exists (in opposition to the other classes in society). The entire identity as such is predicated on the relationship of the person in question to production, the necessary ingredient for figuring out where one stands in the class society in which he or she resides.  

[TNF]

Modern feminism puts a lot of emphasis on intersectionality, so it does take into account class (as well as race). As for which kind of inequality is more "fundamental", it doesn't matter much in practical terms.

It does matter, because you the subjugation of women is predicated on the division of human beings into classes. Without class society, you wouldn't have male chauvinism and the subjugation and super-exploitation of women.

Also, intersectionality is fundamentally incorrect in that it proceeds from a standpoint that social class is an oppressed 'identity' much like that of women or blacks or [insert identity here]. While there is certainly class prejudice (and I would obviously not deny this, having been on occasion referred to as 'trailer trash,' 'white trash', etc.), working class people are not discriminated against in the same way as blacks or women (i.e. because of their class position), and thus that does not define how the working class as a social category comes into being or exists (in opposition to the other classes in society). The entire identity as such is predicated on the relationship of the person in question to production, the necessary ingredient for figuring out where one stands in the class society in which he or she resides.  

Class is based on labour and wealth, with labour and wealth being based on power (exercising power or exerting labour through physical attributes) Power flows from the powerful which if you wind it right the way back biologically has been male. Man's power over women on the basis that men are physically stronger, penetrate women and are not subject to pregnancy or other reproductive 'constraints' pre-exists the collectivisation of any one or any thing. It pre-exists communities and any forms of socialisation rooted as it is in our genetic inheritance as mammals.

Isn't basing response on class not in fact, 'usurping' the role that sex/gender has had in establishing these power structures?

No, because the primitive division of labor between men and women was not as hard and fast as that which arose with the establishment of permanent, agriculture-based human settlements. Sure, human society has, up until this point, had some degree of division on account of sex, going back to pre-class societies. But even before their rise, these were not the rigid social proscriptions that now define what it means to be male or female. These societies were far more egalitarian than what came later. I would posit that class is fundamental here in that even though biological sex roles existed before class society, their accessory (gender roles as we know them) are the direct product of the need of class society to designate subsections of society for the purpose of exploiting them, from whence oppression arises. The subjugation of women produces sexism, not the other way around.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think a good deal of the first part of what you describe here stems from the rigid, feudal past of the UK, in comparison to the U.S. we're we never went through that initial stage of feudal development. That, combined of course with a far less degree of class consciousness here as opposed to the European nations, where of course the contradictions of capitalism have been more fully exposed by trade unions and socialist and communist parties.

As to your second point, I am in total agreement. I do not deny that class prejudice exists. I have myself experienced it first hand, as I pointed out above. The U.S. Media (especially it's liberal variant, which is less inclined to take a preachy, judgmental tone when it comes to black Americans or other working class groups that aren't a) white or b) southern) acts in much the same way toward working class people. There's a good documentary on this called Class Dismissed that I strongly recommend on the subject.