>>1871712>I don't think leftypol actually knows what communism is even about. Accurate name if you think about it, I guess.In other news, wild bear shits in forest.
>Because "patriarchy" is by and large just a vague gesture towards sexism. At worst it muddles up the difference between the after-effects of a patriarchy with an actual ongoing patriarchy and/or treats sexism as an essentialist and trans-historical battle between men and women as opposed factions. Someone hasn't read up on their theory. Patriarchy is the hierarchical norm of social norms meant to reduce the autonomy of non-men and transform men into its soldiers to enforce this uneven, enforcing gender norms and so-called "traditionalist gender roles".
In the social ages preceding civilisation, the organised force of the ‘strong man’ existed for the sole purposes of trapping animals and defence against outside danger. It is this organised force that coveted the family-clan unit that the woman had established as a product of her emotional labour. The takeover of the family-clan constituted the first serious organisation of violence. What was usurped in the process was woman herself, her children and kin, and all their material and moral cultural accumulation. It was the plunder of the initial economy, the home economy. The organised force of proto-priest (shaman), experienced elder and strong man allied to compose the initial and longest enduring patriarchal hierarchic power, that of holy governance. This can be seen in all societies that are at a similar stage: until the class, city and state stage, this hierarchy is dominant in social and economic life.
<In Sumerian society, although the balance gradually turned against the woman, the two sexes were still more or less equal until the second millennium bc. The many temples for goddesses and the mythological texts from this period indicate that between 4,000 and 2,000 bc the influence of the woman- mother culture on the Sumerians, who formed the centre of civilisation, was on par with that of the man. As yet, no culture of shame had developed around the woman.
<So, we see here the start of a new culture that develops its superiority over the mother-woman cult. The development of this authority and hierarchy before the start of class-based society constitutes one of the most important turning points in history. This culture is qualitatively different from the mother-woman culture. Gathering, and later cultivation — the predominant elements of the mother-woman culture — are peaceful activities that do not require warfare. Hunting, which is predominantly taken up by man, rests on war culture and harsh authority.
<It is understandable that the strong man, whose essential role was hunting, coveted the accumulation of the matriarchal order. Establishing his dominance would yield many advantages. Organisation of the power he gained through hunting now gave him the opportunity to rule and to establish the first social hierarchy. This development constituted the first usage of analytical intelligence with malignant intentions; subsequently, it became systemic. Furthermore, the transition from sacred mother cult to sacred father cult enabled analytical intelligence to mask itself behind sanctity. You point to me how the USA/ the UK doesn't have a patriarchal structure when it robs CIS women of their bodily autonomy to have abortions, or how trans women are demonised and considered othered because they don't fit into a gendered binary of cis-hetronormativity.
>Thus, the origin of our serious social problems is to be found in patriarchal societies that became cult-like — that is, religionised — around the strong man. With the enslavement of women, the ground was prepared for the enslavement of not only children but also of men. As man gained experience in accumulating values through the use of slave labour (especially accumulating surplus product), his control over and domination of these slaves grew. Power and authority became increasingly important. The collaboration between the strong man, experienced elder and shaman to form a privileged sec- tor, resulted in a power centre that was difficult to resist. In this centre, analytical intelligence developed an extraordinary mythological narrative in order to rule the minds of the populace. In the mythological world composed for Sumerian society (and passed down through the ages with some adaptations), man is exalted to the point that he is deified as creator of heaven and earth. While woman’s divinity and sacredness is first demeaned and then erased, the idea of man as ruler and absolute power is imprinted on society. Thus, through an enormous network of mythological narratives, every aspect of culture is cloaked in the relationship of ruler and ruled, creator and created. Society is beguiled into internalising this mythological world and gradually it becomes the preferred version. Thenit is turned into religion, a religion into which the concept of a strict distinction between people is built. For instance, the class division of society is reflected in the story of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from paradise and condemnation to servitude. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/abdullah-ocalan-liberating-life#toc5
>There are parts of the world that do exist under a patriarchy in the technical sense, but that portion of the world is shrinking. Women's liberation as a process is proceeding more or less, and in some places has reached the effective limits of what can be done under liberalism. By that logic, we may as well say there are parts of the world where racism doesn't exist!
You're a fool if you think that patriarchy alone effects CIS-women. It effects men too.
Gender discrimination is not a notion restricted to the power relations between woman and man. It defines the power relations that have been spread to all social levels. It is indicative of the state power that has reached its maximum capacity with modernity.
<Gender discrimination has had a twofold destructive effect on society. First, it has opened society to slavery; second, all other forms of enslavement have been implemented on the basis of housewifisation. Housewifisation does not only aim to recreate an individual as a sex object; it is not a result of a biological characteristic. Housewifisation is an intrinsically social process and targets the whole of society. Slavery, subjugation, subjection to insults, weeping, habitual lying, unassertiveness and flaunting oneself are all recognised aspects of housewifisation and must be rejected by the freedom-morality. It is the foundation of a degraded society and the true foundation of slavery. It is the institutional foundation upon which the oldest and all subsequent types of slavery and immorality were implemented. Civilisational society reflects this foundation in all social categories. If the system is to function, society in its entirety must be subjected to housewifisation. Power is synonymous with masculinity. Thus, society’s subjection to housewifisation is inevitable, because power does not recognise the principles of freedom and equality. If it did, it could not exist. Power and sexism in society share the same essence.
<Another important point we have to mention is dependence and oppression of the youth, established by the experienced elderly man in a hierarchical society. While experience strengthens the elderly man, age renders him weak and powerless. This compels the elderly to enlist the youth, which is done by winning their minds. Patriarchy is strengthened tremendously by these means. The physical power of the youth enables them to do whatever they please. This dependency of the youth has been continuously perpetuated and deepened. Superiority of experience and ideology cannot easily be broken. The youth (and even the children) are subjugated to the same strategies and tactics, ideological and political propaganda, and oppressive systems as the woman — adolescence, like femininity, is not a physical but a social fact.
<This must be clearly understood: it is not coincidence that the first powerful authority to be established was authority over woman….
<The culture concerning women that was developed by the monotheistic religions resulted in the second major sexual rupture. Where the rupture of the mythological period was a cultural requirement, the rupture of the monotheistic period was ‘the law as God commands’. Treating women as inferior now became the sacred command of God. The superiority of man in the new religion is illustrated by the relationship between the prophet Abraham and the women Sarah and Hagar.
<Patriarchy was at that point well established. The institution of concubinage was formed; polygamy approved. As indicated by the fierce relationship between the prophet Moses and his sister Mariam, woman’s share in the cultural heritage was eradicated. The society of the prophet Moses was a total male society in which women were not given any task. This is what the fight with Mariam was about.
<In the period of the Hebrew kingdom that rose just before the end of the first millennium bc, we see, with David and Solomon, the transition to a culture of extensive housewifisation. Woman under the dual domination of the patriarchal culture and the religious state culture plays no public role. Te best woman is the one who conforms most to her man or patriarchy. Religion becomes a tool to slander woman. Primarily, she — Eve — was the first sinful woman who seduced Adam, resulting in his expulsion from paradise. Lilith does not subjugate herself to Adam’s god (a patriarchal figure) and befriends the chief of the evil spirits (a human figure who rejects being a servant and does not obey Adam). Indeed, the Sumerian claim that woman was created from man’s rib was included in the Bible. As pointed out earlier, this is a complete reversal of the original narrative — from women being the creator to being the created.
<Family, in this social context, developed as man’s small state.
<The family as an institution has been continuously perfected throughout the history of civilisation, solely because of the reinforcement it provides to power and state apparatus. First, family is turned into a stem cell of state society by giving power to the family in the person of the male. Second, woman’s unlimited and unpaid labour is secured. Third, she raises children in order to meet population needs. Fourth, as a role model she disseminates slavery and immorality to the whole society. Family, thus constituted, is the institution where dynastic ideology becomes functional.
<The most important problem for freedom in a social context is thus family and marriage. When the woman marries, she is in fact enslaved. It is impossible to imagine another institution that enslaves like marriage. The most profound slaveries are established by the institution of marriage, slaveries that become more entrenched within the family. This is not a general reference to sharing life or partner relationships that can be meaningful depending on one’s perception of freedom and equality. What is under discussion is the ingrained, classical marriage and family. Absolute ownership of woman means her withdrawal from all political, intellectual, social and economic arenas; this cannot be easily recovered. Thus, there is a need to radically review family and marriage and develop common guidelines aimed at democracy, freedom and gender equality.
<Marriages or relationships that arise from individual, sexual needs and traditional family concepts can cause some of the most dangerous deviations on the way to a free life. Our need is not for these associations but for attaining gender equality and democracy throughout society and for the will to shape a suitable and common life. This can only be done by analysing the mentality and political environment that breed such destructive associations.
<The dynastic and family culture that remains so powerful in today’s Middle Eastern society is one of the main sources of its problems, because it has given rise to an excessive population, with the power and ambitions to share in the state’s power.
<The degradation of women, inequality, children not being educated, family brawls and problems of honour are all related to the family issue. It is as if a small model of the problems integral to power and state are established within the family. Thus, it is essential to analyse the family in order to analyse power, state, class and society.
<State and power centres gave the father-man within the family a copy of their own authority and had them play that role. Thus, the family became the most important tool for legitimising monopolies. It became the fountainhead of slaves, serfs, labourers, soldiers and providers of all other services required by the ruling and capitalist rings. Tat is why they set such importance in family, why they sanctified it. Although woman’s labour is the most important source of profit for the capitalist rings, they concealed this by putting additional burdens on the family. Family has been turned into the insurance of the system and thus it will inevitably be perpetuated.
<Critique of family is vital. Remnants from past patriarchal and state societies and patterns from modern Western civilisation have not created a synthesis but an impasse in the Middle East. The bottleneck created within the family is even more tangled than the one within the state. If the family continues to maintain its strength in contrast to other, faster dissolving social bonds, this is because it is the only available social shelter. To suggest that patriarchy, capitalism and the state aren't all connected or INTERSECTING is laughable.
>A lot of sexism is maintained through implicit discrimination that you can't effectively combat through anti-discrimination policies. Im pretty sure creating policies that actually preserve the rights of women, cis and trans, and ensure that patriarchal structures of power aren't maintained or are at least mitigated might be a start.
>Meanwhile, the reaction against women's rights (e.g. the "pro life" movement) is in a position to make gains in favor of sexism, so the struggle in those cases is one of conservation against reaction. The current "front" in the struggle against sexism and for liberation is the struggle against capitalism. It's not that socialism will fix it, but that the biggest remnants of the problem can't be solved under capitalism.>>1871727They ain't the only trans person here who agrees.
<but muh proleterian feminism If you're going to dickride theory that is limited by the context of its theory without looking at recent social developments, there's honestly no hope for you.
<For fucks sake, LGBT shit is BY NATURE way more class-collaborationist because it is much more clear cut since it revolves largely around (de-)criminalization and civil liberties.and who is actively taking away and reducing said civil liberties, dumbcunt?
You act as if rainbow capitalism isn't a thing and we aren't aware of it! Actually, come to think of it, how many LGBTQ people do you actually talk to, outside of the "transhumanists with anime pfps" that you probably pic fights with on twitter dot com?