As far as I understand oppression takes many forms: class, sex, religious practice, looks...so many forms. Who is more oppressed a white, wealthy lady or a black, blue collar worker? Depends on the circumstances right?

Generalising about the discrimination in the way that people are trying here is discrimination itself. If you claim that I as a male cannot be as oppressed as a female, then you have missed the point.

The article seemed to be largely a reflection on the various aspects of a movement, which I have no problems with.

Any negative discrimination felt by one group, will be to so extent felt as positive discrimination by another. In this way you could argue that discrimination at least is fairly equal. Oppression however depends on individual cases, and again, to attribute it to one aspect of which a person can be discriminated against is discriminatery in itself and unegalitarian.

i completely agree. in the article he quoted me on, that's pretty much exactly what i said - you can't get rid of just one form of oppression, they all have to be eradicated in order to achieve equality. but since MC's article didn't address those other issues of class, race, sexuality, etc. [i'm not saying that he should have, because its a pretty full on issue as it is and that wasn't the aspect he was looking at it from] but we are discussing his article, which is specifically about the oppression of womyn and men, and in a way that suggested i suppose that we would be comparing two people from the same society/class/of the same race/heterosexual.

I didn't get that^ at all. MC never said anything wrong and, if anything was wrong, it was the words put into his mouth. I don't know about messenger chats or anything, but from the article you would have to look at it in a certain way, and make a few assumptions to get anthing sexist at all from it.

Can you deny it? Men are obviously oppressed by gender roles. You cannot equate it to women that simply have it much worse but men are socially restricted in some comparable ways.

Quote:

Originally posted by rioters bloc@Nov 3 2005, 05:44 AM his entire article reeked of it, and i thought i'd explained myself well enough.. i first suspected him of it here though

Alright; I simply think you are attributing too much to the initial essay, as I didn't see that in there. If you could point out where you saw those sentiments, it might help.

Quote:

Quote: I disagree; even women in Nazi Germany were more respected if they could maintain themselves as reliable baby-factories. I don't think anyone is saying women aren't generally second-class citizens in reactionary society but their exploitation is certainly "respected," as it were. well actually, that's exactly what Monty is saying, that they aren't second-class citizen because their oppression is equal to that of men.

Where did he say that though? I am having trouble following you because you don't directly reference statements.

Quote:

and what exactly did you disagree with? i said pretty much exactly what you just said in my post: Quote: yes, some people respect womyn's role as the mother. not the womyn herself. her value is determined through what she can offer society - more bodies.

You're right; that is quite similar. I simply didn't read carefully through your entire post because I wanted some clarification from the beginning.

Quote:

Originally posted by redstar2000@Nov 3 2005, 09:06 AM Quote: Monty Cantsin

I agree; I wouldn't even know where to start. Obviously women are less prevalent in traditionally "valued" social positions due to patriarchy as much as the cultural implications.

I agreed until your closing: There is a comparison; like I said, you cannot equate the two (the comparison of magnitude) but you can compare them. A man rejecting a position of privilege or a dominant social role, experiences comparable social discrimination. That is simply one example. You are making this issue too black and white RS.

Monty Catsin[emphasis added]

i agree with the first part of that last line, but not the part i bolded.

basically, i meant that his article seemed to be comparing a man and a womyn from the same class, country, age group, sexuality, etc. which is fine for the purposes of that article. the comment wasn't really meant to be 'gotten', it was just in reply to your: "As far as I understand oppression takes many forms: class, sex, religious practice, looks...so many forms. Who is more oppressed a white, wealthy lady or a black, blue collar worker? Depends on the circumstances right?"

oh, and i was just wondering, when you said black blue collar worker did you mean male worker? because womyn can be workers too, you know

313C7 iVi4RXHegemonicretributionit seems as though my partial breakdown of his article wasn't enough to explain why i thought it was sexist. when i get home from work i'll try and breakdown the entire article.

“”

The only time you said I was sexist was when you put words in my mouth and criticized them. You might disagree with him on how I conceptualise gender roles but you can’t go as far to call me a sexist.

“”

The idea that women are more oppressed is based on the idea that the roles enforced on men are ‘better’, I don’t think they are.

That’s every Eurocentric of course whites can be victims of racism, the Japanese consider themselves racially superior to whites. Or at least thy used to thing so I don’t know about now.

If a Jew is a capitalist with gentile proletarians working underneath him or her how is it not exploiting them? Just because someone oppressed in one situation doesn’t mean that can’t oppress another in a different situations. And anyways I never said it was ‘women’ who oppress men just socially conservative views of gender roles.

“”

Exactly, the reason why I started off with the description of the novel is because the illusion of Herzog’s power actually hampered him. Just as the idea that males have more valued and better roles in societies added to their discrimination, ‘why are you winging you run the show’!... "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living...." Karl Marx

“ ”

How is my essay reminiscent of a backlash against feminism? I’m not saying that patriarchy is good and desirable am I? I thought I was advocating gender equalitarianism.


“.”

Capital imposes its own logic on people, not people upon capital from time to time we try and constrain it but without destroying capitals logic which values only its value becomes more and more tyrannical. Besides like I said before just because a woman takes a leadership role within society or is a capitalist doesn’t mean she’s becoming a patriarch.

Anyways I know that was muddled by I’m tried and going to bed now.