The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere

[thirdform]

I'm fine with mixing materialism and idealism, so long as I remain a materialist.

Precisely, you're interested in cultural studies, not politics as such, so you end up being trapped in an insoluble contradiction by attempting to politicise your cultural studies.

I have no desire to transcend metaphysics.

Precisely, because for you the proletariat is merely an amorphous mass which must be succorred by democracy into the useful lapdog of capital. You deny that the proletariat has anything to offer to history other than being the poor, the common man and the 'marginalised'. Now at risk of being told I don't understand American rightists, this is in accordance with paternalist conservatism.

The answer here is simple: we critique the noble members of the dominant culture and defend the abject followers of feminine non-phallic culture.

That doesn't negate my point. The least abject will still have to hang the most abject, until only you remain. Isn't this what modern university leftism and university orientated queer scenes are about? Constantly subjecting people to self-inquisitions for any sort of behaviour seen as undermining this facade. Blessed are those who are poor and abject, but continue to suffer and do not get all uppedy! Why not merely go beyond the noble/ignoble binary? Seems a lot of effort for nothing otherwise.

Why do you remain so religious then? You leave out the fact that eventually Marx abandoned religion altogether. Isn't it more faithful to Marx to take an atheist approach to the economy?

I'm not, I just like to bully abstract whiteboy (not you particularly) by constantly slamming the clash of civilisations in his face. he always pretends that by rejecting this Huntingtonian hypothesis he has done the requisite work to reject it in theory and practice. Make no mistake, I leave no room for religion in my enquiries, I simply know that islam as civilisational antagonist is the enemy to Christian anglo-american civilisation. Your name should be Haroon, not Aaron, then we can talk.

 

[?!..!?]

why do you want to feminise hypermasculine men

I don't. I'd be happy if hypermasculine men got in touch with their feminine side, but that's their choice. I'm not trying to force anyone to act in any way they don't want to. I promote the increased representation of male femininity. Rather than make masculine men feminine, I want to shine a spotlight on feminine, sensitive men.

Aren't you just trying to make these men better integrated into the labour market?

I don't how anyone would do this, but I would be happy if my male lesbianism succeeded in helping men keep jobs...?

Further more, how do you expect humans to carry out their daily affairs with diminished sense of ego. Women are necessarily so (like men) highly egotistical, otherwise they wouldn't as such, have a sense of self and womanhood,

I'm not into diminishing anyone's self-esteem. I want to encourage people to do more for others. Of course women and men are both egotistical, both have phallic tendencies. But that egotism promotes capitalistic culture. I want to shift the culture to focus more on building inclusive communities.

' You talk about the unconditional openness of the feminin, but surely then you could only keep this unconditionality up through masculine oppression? This is where you tend to mystify gender.

I don't see how this conclusion follows. If I have unconditional love for my partner, I don't need masculine oppression to feel that way. Of course, masculine oppression influences my love, but it influences everything! Unconditional love involves a radical selflessness oppositional to capitalism. Unconditional love fights masculine oppression.

 

[?!..!?]

Precisely, you're interested in cultural studies, not politics as such, so you end up being trapped in an insoluble contradiction by attempting to politicise your cultural studies.

Cultural studies permits a political interpretation just like almost every field does. Just because I don't do political science doesn't mean I contradict myself in arguing that cultural studies pertains to a small sub-field of politics, namely identity politics. And I argue that in identity politics, it's best to take an intersubective approach. Besides culture itself, cultural studies concern institutions and communities. I sort of work at the foundation of cultural studies. I don't know of anyone doing work like this in academia, but I'd love to be proven wrong with some reccommendations.

Precisely, because for you the proletariat is merely an amorphous mass which must be succorred by democracy into the useful lapdog of capital.

But I'm an anti-capitalist democratic socialist. I believe the proletariat is a heterogeneous collection of individuals from different communities which democracy must guide to oppose capital. I'm all for a diversity of independent workers selling useless art.

You deny that the proletariat has anything to offer to history other than being the poor, the common man and the 'marginalised'. Now at risk of being told I don't understand American rightists, this is in accordance with paternalist conservatism.

You caricature identity politics here. This cartoon of "woke" ideology remembles the right-wing distortion of the average identity politiker. You make it seem like identity politickers valorize victimhood to the point of even wanting the oppressed to remain oppressed so they can keep their superior status. This is silly.

Really, we're trying to represent and include marginalized voices. We're changing culture without changing society. That's why I believe cultural studies and identity politics should be part of a larger political program to push America toward democratic socialism. I wonder how Cornel West feels about this?

That doesn't negate my point. The least abject will still have to hang the most abject, until only you remain.

Unless all the abject people join together in a mutually supportive community united in their opposition to the traditional gender binary that abjected them and the patriarchy that refuses to represent them.

Isn't this what modern university leftism and university orientated queer scenes are about? Constantly subjecting people to self-inquisitions for any sort of behaviour seen as undermining this facade. Blessed are those who are poor and abject, but continue to suffer and do not get all uppedy!

Another cartoon. I don't deny that the contemporary American left involves alot of loyalty oaths, flaggellation and witch hunts. But I'm an apologist for SJWs, for the "woke" left. We should focus on the positive side of american left wing identity politics, namely, the creation of stronger, more inclusive communities.

Why not merely go beyond the noble/ignoble binary? Seems a lot of effort for nothing otherwise.

I believe I have transcended that binary. I never made any claims about any nobility. "Abjection" is a technical term in Butler. She borrows it from Julia Kristeva. Everyone who defies the gender binary is abject, excluded from the phallic system of representation. Even women who defy objectification under the male gaze like female lesbians are excluded from the dominant culture.

I'm not, I just like to bully abstract whiteboy (not you particularly) by constantly slamming the clash of civilisations in his face. he always pretends that by rejecting this Huntingtonian hypothesis he has done the requisite work to reject it in theory and practice.

I don't know about the "clash of civilizations", that's more political science and not my forte. I'm interested to know what you think it takes to reject the clash of civilization in theory or practice.

The only cultural clash I know about is the conflict between masculine and feminine cultures.

 

[thirdform]

You caricature identity politics here. This cartoon of "woke" ideology remembles the right-wing distortion of the average identity politiker. You make it seem like identity politickers valorize victimhood to the point of even wanting the oppressed to remain oppressed so they can keep their superior status. This is silly.

Yes, the right unfortunately have you banged to rights here. Your milieu are white paternalists, and think raciologically to boot. Of course, the right make the same idiotic error as you lot, by becoming anti-woke. Wokeism is nonsense, it's middle class activist and careerist jockying, so to be opposed to it means you end up valourising it. I simply reject it all as so much incoherent blustering. I have nothing to oppose to the self-defined wokes because its not coherent, and mere ideology.

Really, we're trying to represent and include marginalized voices. We're changing culture without changing society. That's why I believe cultural studies and identity politics should be part of a larger political program to push America toward democratic socialism. I wonder how Cornel West feels about this?

Crude appeal to authority, and the world exists beyond America.

Unless all the abject people join together in a mutually supportive community united in their opposition to the traditional gender binary that abjected them and the patriarchy that refuses to represent them.

Then they wouldn't be able to identify as abject, and they would have nothing of the abject feminised manhood you defend. Autopoiesis my main man, autopoiesis.

Another cartoon. I don't deny that the contemporary American left involves alot of loyalty oaths, flaggellation and witch hunts. But I'm an apologist for SJWs, for the "woke" left. We should focus on the positive side of american left wing identity politics, namely, the creation of stronger, more inclusive communities.

We should focus on the positive side of American imperialism, like siding with Abdel Nasser against the British, and supporting apartheid south africa against the Russians!

I believe I have transcended that binary. I never made any claims about any nobility. "Abjection" is a technical term in Butler. She borrows it from Julia Kristeva. Everyone who defies the gender binary is abject, excluded from the phallic system of representation. Even women who defy objectification under the male gaze like female lesbians are excluded from the dominant culture.

Wrong, the dominant culture is Christian (more correctly protestant) and white, not islamic and afroAsiatic. At least in the UK and America. Your eyes will precisely be closed to this because you want to politicise cultural studies without doing the requisite political work. I am not against cultural studies being permeated with politics, but it requires knowledge you don't want to assume.

I don't know about the "clash of civilizations", that's more political science and not my forte. I'm interested to know what you think it takes to reject the clash of civilization in theory or practice.

By not identifying so heavily with America and American identity politics, which must necessarily be forceably imperialist, even if it superficially opposes militarism, precisely because America at present is one of the greatest imperialist powers.

You're a democratic socialist, which means you will carp for the further most wing of the left wing democrats.What practical action are you taking to oppose US militarism? Or like the UK labour blockheads on here, is it mere hypermoralistic blustering?

What horrifies you so much about proletarian dictatorship? Loss of your bohemian lifestyle?

 

[?!..!?]

Yes, the right unfortunately have you banged to rights here. Your milieu are white paternalists, and think raciologically to boot. Of course, the right make the same idiotic error as you lot, by becoming anti-woke. Wokeism is nonsense, it's middle class activist and careerist jockying, so to be opposed to it means you end up valourising it. I simply reject it all as so much incoherent blustering. I have nothing to oppose to the self-defined wokes because its not coherent, and mere ideology.

Wokeism may be "middle class activism" but it's sure not careerism. It's representing otherwise unknown people. By contributing to a culture of unconditional love, feminists fight the careerist tendency to instrumentalize everything and treat everything as valuable only relative to one's goals.

Then they wouldn't be able to identify as abject, and they would have nothing of the abject feminised manhood you defend. Autopoiesis my main man, autopoiesis.

No they can identify as abject just because they define the gender binary. Abject people often lack a community but that doesn't mean they can't have one.

It's still not clear to me what the relevance of autopoeisis is to this discussion.

We should focus on the positive side of American imperialism, like siding with Abdel Nasser against the British, and supporting apartheid south africa against the Russians!

What is the relation between identity politics and imperialism?

Wrong, the dominant culture is Christian (more correctly protestant) and white, not islamic and afroAsiatic. At least in the UK and America.

Yes the dominant culture is Christian, white, and masculine. The patriarchy and capitalism are in cahoots.

Your eyes will precisely be closed to this because you want to politicise cultural studies without doing the requisite political work. I am not against cultural studies being permeated with politics, but it requires knowledge you don't want to assume.

What is this "requisite political work"? I'm all for research reccomendations. And I don't know what political works I haven't read that one would teach in an introductory cultural studies course. I think it's fine to do cultural studies without doing political science. If there's overlap between the two fields, I'm unaware of it, but happy to learn.

By not identifying so heavily with America and American identity politics, which must necessarily be forceably imperialist, even if it superficially opposes militarism, precisely because America at present is one of the greatest imperialist powers.

Right but you're just giving a negative answer. I want a positive answer that goes beyond just negating my strategy. It's not enough for you to tell me to stop doing what I'm doing, you have to provide an alternative.

IDK how the movement to prevent the cultural erasure of queers is imperialist. It seems like you're just assuming american culture is automatically imperialist. And it might be, but that doesn't mean you should write off all American identity politics. The issues in American identity politics matter globally. Queers are treated much worse in countries other than America. I just talk about American identity politics because it's what I know. I choose to cautiously remain inside the limits of my knowledge.

You're a democratic socialist, which means you will carp for the further most wing of the left wing democrats.What practical action are you taking to oppose US militarism? Or like the UK labour blockheads on here, is it mere hypermoralistic blustering?

I don't know if take any practical action to oppose US militarization, but I've been quite vocal about my opposition to the militarization of the police force.

The male lesbian project is a moralistic one. It's a lesson in Jewish and secular morality. I have no qualms about my moralism.

What horrifies you so much about proletarian dictatorship? Loss of your bohemian lifestyle?

Just the inevitable descent into tyranny it results in, you know...

 

[thirdform]

Just the inevitable descent into tyranny it results in, you know...

this is the crux of the matter, all things subtracted, isn't it? Everything else only impinges on this fear, so let's deal with it. You want to be anti-capitalist, and yet you can't face what that will entail. At least right wing contributors on this forum, as besotted to the culture war like you are, like HMG and Biscuits, are cut throat pro-capitalists. Engels puts it best:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

Now, you can say actually, I'm not an anti-capitalist, I want to moderate capitalism, and then we could at least converse. But because you are intent upon calling yourself a socialist, it becomes impossible to converse with you because even Spanish anarchists shot nuns on sight (which, by the way, I don't agree with.) But this is what is called taking power.

The moralistic elements of your project are of no interest to me, I'm only interested in the political ramifications, something you haven't thought through. And unconditional love is a contradiction in terms. Read Wuthering Heights!

 

[?!..!?]

this is the crux of the matter, all things subtracted, isn't it? Everything else only impinges on this fear, so let's deal with it. You want to be anti-capitalist, and yet you can't face what that will entail. At least right wing contributors on this forum, as besotted to the culture war like you are, like HMG and Biscuits, are cut throat pro-capitalists.

I don't see why you're so attached to the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's an antiquated notion. I stand by the power of gradual progressive reforms and systematic changes to bring about socialism. I don't think we need bloody despotism to achieve socialism.

Now, you can say actually, I'm not an anti-capitalist, I want to moderate capitalism, and then we could at least converse. But because you are intent upon calling yourself a socialist, it becomes impossible to converse with you because even Spanish anarchists shot nuns on sight (which, by the way, I don't agree with.) But this is what is called taking power.

I mean, in some ways I am a capitalist. I want to improve capitalism through gradual reforms. I also want to increase spending on government programs in a way that many would say interferes with corporate business opportunities. I want to universalize everything right-wingers want to privatize. Democratic socialist in America criticize capitalism to improve it. It's easier to make the existing system better than it is to destroy the current system and start anew. Thus it's not so easy to draw a binary opposition between capitalism/anti-capitalism.

The only way identity politikers will ever take power is by changing laws to better respect the rights of minorities, like the Civil Rights Act. Identity politics depends on no future revolution like traditional Marxism does. I'm interested in the changes we can make to culture within legal limits.

The moralistic elements of your project are of no interest to me, I'm only interested in the political ramifications, something you haven't thought through.

And what are these political consequences?

 

[thirdform]

I mean, in some ways I am a capitalist. I want to improve capitalism through gradual reforms. I also want to increase spending on government programs in a way that many would say interferes with corporate business opportunities. I want to universalize everything right-wingers want to privatize. Democratic socialist in America criticize capitalism to improve it. It's easier to make the existing system better than it is to destroy the current system and start anew. Thus it's not so easy to draw a binary opposition between capitalism/anti-capitalism.

Surely then, what you want to do is put the breaks on a further accelerating capitalism? But then again, the libertarians have you banged to rights. The faster we traverse the code, (in the Deleuzian sense) the more the contradictions are left unchecked, and the more the groundwork for socialism is laid. This is not a view I agree with, but it is infinitely more deserving of respect than the anguished moralism of someone who thinks that through sheer will alone they can subvert the value form and market forces, market forces moreover that will continue to act with the same impunity if they are nationalised, because the state and government in advanced capitalism are the bourgeoisie. Your notion of capitalism is far more antiquated than my notion of a proletarian dictatorship, young man!

The only way identity politikers will ever take power is by changing laws to better respect the rights of minorities, like the Civil Rights Act. Identity politics depends on no future revolution like traditional Marxism does. I'm interested in the changes we can make to culture within legal limits.

Keep up with that noble endeavour and fail harder. Hillary, Trump and now Biden should have made you jaded, but alas... You still crying over Bernie?

 

[thirdform]

I note that you didn't respond to my quip about wuthering heights.

You want to be team Catherine, but you are team Heathcliff. Concerning, no?

 

[?!..!?]

Surely then, what you want to do is put the breaks on a further accelerating capitalism?

I'm fine with limiting capitalist expansion but I'd much rather move toward socialism.

But then again, the libertarians have you banged to rights.

What are the libertarians saying?

The faster we traverse the code, (in the Deleuzian sense) the more the contradictions are left unchecked, and the more the groundwork for socialism is laid.

Accelerationism, right. But I reject accelerationism as anything more than a sci fi thought experiment.

This is not a view I agree with, but it is infinitely more deserving of respect than the anguished moralism of someone who thinks that through sheer will alone they can subvert the value form and market forces,

Well certainly I don't believe I can change the market by my will alone! I just don't know about market forces. I want to read more about sociology, but it's a huge undertaking when I already have a lot of philosophy to read. My work is never done. But like I said, I'm open to reccommendations of books to read.

market forces moreover that will continue to act with the same impunity if they are nationalised, because the state and government in advanced capitalism are the bourgeoisie.

I'm interested to know how this works. And how do we organize market forces to move in a direction favorable to socialism?

Keep up with that noble endeavour and fail harder. Hillary, Trump and now Biden should have made you jaded, but alas... You still crying over Bernie?

I'm more excited for Cornel West's ability to change Biden's policies! Bernie helped move the public toward a more positive view on socialism.

 

[?!..!?]

I note that you didn't respond to my quip about wuthering heights.

You want to be team Catherine, but you are team Heathcliff. Concerning, no?

I have no clue why you like victorian literature so much. I find most of that stuff cruddy. Balzac is good though.

 

[thirdform]

I have no clue why you like victorian literature so much. I find most of that stuff cruddy. Balzac is good though.

Ah but literature is at its best when it is cruddy, just like the surgeon deals with scar tissue.

 

[thirdform]

Accelerationism, right. But I reject accelerationism as anything more than a sci fi thought experiment.

Partially. Accelerationism as a school of thought is an inane experiment, sure, precisely because it refuses to identify the distinction in constant capital between fixed and circulating. Raw materials and inputs don't just magically exist and even fixed capital itself is subject to wear and tear.

But, accelerationism is also just a valourisation of the liberal bourgeois democratic revolutions, but to the extent that they refuse to see the proletariat as the protagonist of future history. It just makes capital the same motor subject, which is why it has no socialist component. But you suffer from the same affliction, in wanting to mature capitalism.

 

[?!..!?]

But you suffer from the same affliction, in wanting to mature capitalism.

Say more. I'm not sure what this affliction is.

 

[thirdform]

It's something you have to learn yourself. I cannot babysit you through it, unfortunately. All the clues are in this thread to embark upon your own journey though.

 

[?!..!?]

It's something you have to learn yourself. I cannot babysit you through it, unfortunately. All the clues are in this thread to embark upon your own journey though.

Well if that's the way you want to play, then what do we have to argue about?

 

[thirdform]

Well if that's the way you want to play, then what do we have to argue about?

I never argue (debate) for the sake of arguing, a decadent bourgeois habit. I grind my opponent into the dust, and if he still thinks he has the upper hand, he's welcome to think that. the historical dialectic will judge us, after all.

 

[?!..!?]

I never argue (debate) for the sake of arguing, a decadent bourgeois habit. I grind my opponent into the dust, and if he still thinks he has the upper hand, he's welcome to think that. the historical dialectic will judge us, after all.

Well don't criticize my presentation when you won't clarify your own argument.

 

[thirdform]

Well don't criticize my presentation when you won't clarify your own argument.

I've clarified my own perspective. not my fault you're too fucking thick to understand it. Which is why I said you have to complete the rest of the journey yourself. I can't forceably make you street smart and intelligent (which do note is different to your ostentatious veneer of intellectualism...)

 

[?!..!?]

Eh, if you can't explain your view quickly to an idiot like me, your view was never that clear to begin with.

And enough with the anti-intellectualism. Why is everyone here such an anti-intellectual?