Christian Feminist Socialist hipster vs Libertarian Atheist MRA

[Thunderbird is the word]

vote!

[Goldwater]

Libertarian Atheist/Christian Socialist

[politicus]

Unsurprisingly I vote for Christian Feminist Socialist hipster. The hipster part being the most problematic for me in that combo.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No fedoras should ever be elected to any position of relevance.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Guess.

[VPH]

Christian feminist socialist hipster? She sounds like my type

[ElectionsGuy]

Libertarian Atheist/Christian Socialist

I would rather go for a feminist than a MRA, but this. But of course if the christian socialist is a rabid feminazi, than him/her is just as bad as a MRA.

[TDAS04]

Option 1. 

[Brewer]

Dear god...Option 1, of course.

[Murica!]

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

I would rather go for a feminist than a MRA, but this. But of course if the christian socialist is a rabid feminazi, than him/her is just as bad as a MRA.

lol

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 1 (decent human being)

[PJ]

The only thing I have in common with the libertarian is my religion, which I don't base my vote off of, and I couldn't care less if a candidate is a hipster, so clearly option 1.

[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.

[H. Ross Peron]

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

So Christians are automatically as bad as MRAs?

[DavidB.]

Libertarian Atheist/Christian Socialist

[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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If the libertarian atheist is respectful of other religions and doesn't force his atheism down anyone's throat, then him.  Otherwise, I'd go write-in.

[SWE]

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

So Christians are automatically as bad as MRAs?

Calling two things bad =/= calling them equally bad.

[Figueira]

If the Christian socialist is respectful of other religions and doesn't force their Christianity down anyone's throat, then them. Otherwise, I'd go write-in.

[Figueira]

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?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The choice is obvious.

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?

TNF has some very retrograde ideas on sex and gender, which he gussies up in the context of subordinating all issues to the issue of (how he defines) the class struggle (in which 'class' is...not race- and sex-neutral, exactly, but circumscribed in a way that doesn't leave much room for them as axes for analysis and action in their own right). This isn't necessarily his fault, as it's a common feature of a lot of the types of discourse to which he subscribes, meaning that it's probably come into his thinking from some outside source.

[Horus]

If the Christian socialist is respectful of other religions and doesn't force their Christianity down anyone's throat, then them. Otherwise, I'd go Libertarian Atheist.

[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).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.