Arf Vs. Revol, Devrim...
Dec 26 2006 21:47
Can we keep it here instead of arguing across other people's discussions. By the way that comment is aimed not just at Arf, but also at Revol, and others.
I will reply in a minute.
Devrim
Dec 26 2006 22:08
#2
why have you phrased it "arf vs .."? i mean - you lot started it, i have only been responding. a more accurate title wouldve been "bandwagon vs arf", surely?
Dec 26 2006 22:10
#3
arf wrote:
a more accurate title wouldve been "bandwagon vs arf", surely?
I was thinking more arf vs patriarchy.
Dec 26 2006 22:16
#4
You claim that your comment was on topic. Of course, it is difficult to tell with abstract one liners. It seemed to me that you were trying to introduce , what seems to be your favourite topic, radical feminism, to a thread which had nothing to do with it. The discussion on the thread was about AI, and if you wanted to develop another part of the subject, I think that it would have taken more than one line.
As for my supposed insults:
arf wrote:
and btw, what exactly does "people like it" mean devrim? it sounds rude and condescending to me, like you think you are better than i am. another insult you apparently didnt make?
I am sorry, that was my mistake. It was supposed to read ‘…people like that, it just…’. Still not complimentary, but not as bad as it came out, once again, sorry.
On the subject of ‘rights’, You wrote:
arf wrote:
responding with a load of stuff about how women are so equal with men in the eyes of the law, …
Don’t you think though that there is a problem with the whole idea of ‘rights’. Even in a country like Turkey men and women are equal before the law. However, it would be very stupid to suggest that men, and women are equal in society. Surely that must make one think about how rights correspond to everyday reality.
arf wrote:
and i assumed you were a guy because you had the nerve to tell me to fuck off a thread after you alone had judged my one sentence comment as "off topic" and unworthy, a position of such assumed superiority that i thought you being male was likely. you're now implying im some sort of racist because your name is unisex? how the fuck does that work then?
I don’t think that there was any accusation of ‘racism’ there. I merely said:
Devrim wrote:
Why do you assume that I am a man. It is a unisex name in a language that I presume you are not familiar with.
I don’t expect most English speakers to speak Turkish, and it is not an accusation of ‘racism’ to imagine that you don’t. Actually you would probably like it. For example there are no sexual pronouns (he/she/it are all ‘O’), and apart from older relatives there are very few gender related words in the entire language . Brother, and sister is the same word (if they are younger that is).
I think that when you say I implied that you were ‘some sort of racist’, it says more about how you think than about how I do.
Devrim
Dec 26 2006 22:18
#5
arf wrote:
why have you phrased it "arf vs .."? i mean - you lot started it, i have only been responding. a more accurate title wouldve been "bandwagon vs arf", surely?
Actually, I was going to put us first, but then I imagined you would turn around, and say you just put me second because I am a woman. Sometimes you can't win.
Devrim
Dec 26 2006 22:18
#6
re "arf vs patriarchy" - again, that would surely be the wrong way round.
look kids - i didnt start it, but im not going to lay down and take it either. i dont want to fight with any of you, except sometimes revol and thats only because it can - on occasion mind! - be fun. i have no idea who devrim is, and i think jacks such a numpty that i wouldnt usually even waste my time on him. i dont know why you're all obsessing over me anyway.
Dec 26 2006 22:30
#7
Devrim wrote:
You claim that your comment was on topic. Of course, it is difficult to tell with abstract one liners. It seemed to me that you were trying to introduce , what seems to be your favourite topic, radical feminism, to a thread which had nothing to do with it.
not my favorite topic, but something i am passionate about. so what?
Quote:
The discussion on the thread was about AI,
no, it was about robots getting human rights, and i was on topic devrim. in any case - since when were you the "on topic" police?
Quote:
I am sorry, that was my mistake. It was supposed to read ‘…people like that, it just…’. Still not complimentary, but not as bad as it came out, once again, sorry.
like you say, it was still insulting, but not as bad as i thought.
Quote:
Don’t you think though that there is a problem with the whole idea of ‘rights’.
fuck yeh, in so many ways.
Quote:
Even in a country like Turkey men and women are equal before the law.
are they dev? who makes the law, do they have a bias? it is my belief that laws made by majority (if not entirely, as they are in most places on this planet) male law makers, under varying forms of patriarchy, are going to naturally be skewed in favour of the male and not representative of the female. "even in a country like turkey" men and women are not treated equally under the law and the law does not represent them equally.
Quote:
I don’t think that there was any accusation of ‘racism’ there. I merely said:Devrim wrote:
Why do you assume that I am a man. It is a unisex name in a language that I presume you are not familiar with.I don’t expect most English speakers to speak Turkish, and it is not an accusation of ‘racism’ to imagine that you don’t. Actually you would probably like it. For example there are no sexual pronouns (he/she/it are all ‘O’), and apart from older relatives there are very few gender related words in the entire language . Brother, and sister is the same word (if they are younger that is).
I think that when you say I implied that you were ‘some sort of racist’, it says more about how you think than about how I do.
dont play silly semantic games with me dev. im the ice queen of passive/aggressive, dont you know. you wont win.
Dec 26 2006 22:49
#8
arf wrote:
dont play silly semantic games with me dev. im the ice queen of passive/aggressive, dont you know. you wont win.
I'm rooting for arf now.
Dec 26 2006 22:52
#9
Quote:
dont play silly semantic games with me dev. im the ice queen of passive/aggressive, dont you know. you wont win.
It is a discussion board. It is not about winning, or losing. It is about discussion, and the exchange of ideas.
arf wrote:
Quote:
Even in a country like Turkey men and women are equal before the law.are they dev? who makes the law, do they have a bias? it is my belief that laws made by majority (if not entirely, as they are in most places on this planet) male law makers, under varying forms of patriarchy, are going to naturally be skewed in favour of the male and not representative of the female. "even in a country like turkey" men and women are not treated equally under the law and the law does not represent them equally.
Yes, actually they are. In law men, and women are legally
equal. You write:
arf wrote:
"even in a country like turkey" men and women are not treated equally under the law
I have never said that they were. Shocking things happen to women in Turkey, from the day to day beatings (Turkish idiom-'she is my wife. I will hit her if I want), to honour killings. There was a thing that happened to a friend of mine when I was a teenager that still haunts me today.
The point is though that this is not a question of 'rights'. Men, and women have equal 'rights' as I said before.
This has changed relatively recently. About ten (let's change that to fifteen-you get older so quickly)years ago a close friend of mine was the person who won the right to be employed without her father/husband's permission.
Now, however, Turkey is well on the way to joining the EU, and everything is equal before the law. That does not mean that women are equal in society, but it does mean that your focus on 'rights' maybe misdirected.
Devrim
Dec 26 2006 23:06
#10
arf wrote:
the male
Just the one? Lucky bugger.
This is exactly the problem with radical feminism, it requires the existence of a singular, homogeneous male and female, which is not the reality at all. You simply can't analyse gender in the same way you can class.
I was just about to start a thread about this actually.
Dec 26 2006 23:23
#11
revol68 wrote:
and yourself comrade, the march of history does not forget even left communists.
I thought everyone forgot about the left communists.
Dec 26 2006 23:25
#12
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
revol68 wrote:
and yourself comrade, the march of history does not forget even left communists.I thought everyone forgot about the left communists.
nope their just at the back struggling with Lenin's embalmed corpse.
Dec 27 2006 00:38
#13
Jack wrote:
arf wrote:
a more accurate title wouldve been "bandwagon vs arf", surely?I was thinking more arf vs patriarchy.
Jeez, you need to spend less time in Brighton you poisoned hippy. How about Arf and patriarchy vs women?
Dec 27 2006 01:29
#14
Devrim wrote:
Brother, and sister is the same word (if they are younger that is).
ageism!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dec 27 2006 01:33
#15
madashell wrote:
This is exactly the problem with radical feminism, it requires the existence of a singular, homogeneous male and female, which is not the reality at all.
spot on, but it's soooooooooooooooooooo much easier to objectify and depersonalize. as long as i've been hearing them, radical feminist arguments have been nothing but a reverse-sexism: set up a stereotype drawn from that microscopic segment of men who produce literature, as if they were representative of anyone but themselves, and attack that.
Dec 27 2006 02:03
#16
Alan wrote:
Jeez, you need to spend less time in Brighton you poisoned hippy. How about Arf and patriarchy vs women?
Idiot.
Dec 27 2006 12:56
#17
Devrim wrote:
and apart from older relatives there are very few gender related words in the entire language . Brother, and sister is the same word (if they are younger that is).
What about your twin, especially if you didn't know which of you was born 5 minutes or whatever before the other?
Are there different words for son and daughter in Turkish?
cheers
Pete
PS. Arf, Devrim is one of the politest posters on these forums, I doubt he intended to offend you.
Dec 27 2006 13:25
#18
Peter wrote:
Devrim wrote:
and apart from older relatives there are very few gender related words in the entire language . Brother, and sister is the same word (if they are younger that is).What about your twin, especially if you didn't know which of you was born 5 minutes or whatever before the other?
Rephase the last bit 'if they are not older that is'.
I don't think that exactly who is older is the important thing. The words abla, and ağabey are honourifics, though nowadays they are used to implt closeness with any slightly older person.
Quote:
Are there different words for son and daughter in Turkish?
Yes there are, there is also a common one though, which I think is older.
cheers
Pete
Dec 27 2006 14:25
#19
madashell wrote:
This is exactly the problem with radical feminism, it requires the existence of a singular, homogeneous male and female...
No, it doesn't.
madashell wrote:
You simply can't analyse gender in the same way you can class.
That's true. Radical feminism doesn't do that. Anarcha-feminism possibly does.
Dec 27 2006 14:28
#20
treeofjudas wrote:
madashell wrote:
This is exactly the problem with radical feminism, it requires the existence of a singular, homogeneous male and female...No, it doesn't.
madashell wrote:
You simply can't analyse gender in the same way you can class.That's true. Radical feminism doesn't do that. Anarcha-feminism possibly does.
i've got to behave myself at the moment so i'll try and make this nice, you don't really understand radical feminism or anarcha feminism, do you?
Dec 27 2006 17:51
#21
treeofjudas wrote:
madashell wrote:
You simply can't analyse gender in the same way you can class.That's true. Radical feminism doesn't do that.
Yes it does. That's the whole point of Radical Feminism. In fact, some radfems even go as far as to explicitly refer to the male and female "classes".
Dec 27 2006 18:30
#22
madashell wrote:
Yes it does. That's the whole point of Radical Feminism. In fact, some radfems even go as far as to explicitly refer to the male and female "classes".
No, it doesn't. Not, that's not the whole point of radical feminism. You are correct in saying that there are some radical feminists who refer to male and female as "classes." They're called Marxist feminists, and they are not the definitive strain of radical feminism. Anarcha-feminists are definitely about that, but I don't think they're considered part of radical feminism, and even if they were, they're not the definitive strain either. I suggest that you read, again, the wikipedia definitions of all three.
I am loath to defend myself as a radical feminist against accusations directed at Marxist and anarcha feminists, just as the lot of you would be loath to defend yourselves as communists against accusations directed at social-democrats and Bolsheviks. There's a term for attacking someone for a position they don't hold: it's called beating down a straw-man. That's une faux pas, dude.
Dec 27 2006 19:17
#23
treeofjudas wrote:
No, it doesn't. Not, that's not the whole point of radical feminism. You are correct in saying that there are some radical feminists who refer to male and female as "classes." They're called Marxist feminists, and they are not the definitive strain of radical feminism. Anarcha-feminists are definitely about that, but I don't think they're considered part of radical feminism, and even if they were, they're not the definitive strain either. I suggest that you read, again, the wikipedia definitions of all three.I am loath to defend myself as a radical feminist against accusations directed at Marxist and anarcha feminists, just as the lot of you would be loath to defend yourselves as communists against accusations directed at social-democrats and Bolsheviks. There's a term for attacking someone for a position they don't hold: it's called beating down a straw-man. That's une faux pas, dude.
I don't know what opinions you might happen to hold, but you either don't understand radical feminism (or Marxist feminism, or anarcha-feminism) or you don't understand what I'm saying.
Marxist feminism holds that patriarchy results from class conflict, whereas radical feminism holds that patriarchy has an existence independent of class, but that the relationship between men and women under patriarchy is analogous to that of boss and worker under capitalism. This idea runs through the whole radical feminist tradition, the way in which radfems analyse gender is identical to the way that many Marxists analyse class.
Dec 27 2006 21:40
#24
Quote:
I thought everyone forgot about the left communists.
I thought everyone made fun of anarchists 
Devrim wrote:
Brother, and sister is the same word (if they are younger that is).
Oh my god! Young people don't have the same "rights" with old people! We are being oppressed by the old! Young people of the world, unite to destroy the old generation! (Sigh, I really don't like identity politics)
Dec 28 2006 03:23
#25
Leo Uilleann wrote:
Oh my god! Young people don't have the same "rights" with old people! We are being oppressed by the old! Young people of the world, unite to destroy the old generation!
like i said 
Leo Uilleann wrote:
(Sigh, I really don't like identity politics)
like i said
Dec 28 2006 08:15
#26
madashell wrote:
I don't know what opinions you might happen to hold, but you either don't understand radical feminism (or Marxist feminism, or anarcha-feminism) or you don't understand what I'm saying.
There's at least one more option: you're wrong.
madashell wrote:
Marxist feminism holds that patriarchy results from class conflict, whereas radical feminism holds that patriarchy has an existence independent of class, but that the relationship between men and women under patriarchy is analogous to that of boss and worker under capitalism. This idea runs through the whole radical feminist tradition, the way in which radfems analyse gender is identical to the way that many Marxists analyse class.
There's a huge difference between analogy and identity. I already mentioned that all radical feminists I know personally are also queer or queer-friendly, as are most if not all the radical feminists they "swear by," as it were. How could that be possible if they were analyzing "man" and "woman" as rigid class distinctions?
Dec 28 2006 10:21
#27
Quote:
like i said
I have to admit that you were the main inspiration behind my post. (
)
Dec 29 2006 02:08
#28
Quote:
Oh my god! Young people don't have the same "rights" with old people! We are being oppressed by the old! Young people of the world, unite to destroy the old generation!
When I look back at this thread, I find it very fake for me to give such a reaction to an explanation of how words work in Turkish, which is, after all, my first language. Yet, I intended it to be fake so maybe it's just ironic?
Dec 29 2006 12:54
#29
treeofjudas wrote:
Not, that's not the whole point of radical feminism. You are correct in saying that there are some radical feminists who refer to male and female as "classes." They're called Marxist feminists, and they are not the definitive strain of radical feminism.
Please, for god's sake, understand what is being said to you. "Radical feminism" is not just feminism that is radical to be stood against say "bourgeois" or "reformist" feminism. It is a distinct intellectual tradition of its own that explicitly rejects other strains of feminism that do not see gender as the primary and overriding contradition in our societies. Radical feminism, particularly in the work of MacKinnon (for example in Towards a Feminist Theory of the State), but also elsewhere, explicitly rejects those strands of feminism that use marxist tools, whether it's the crude 'secondary contradiction' bollocks peddaled by those within various Leninist groups, or the more sophisticated tradition that comes out of Italy and Wages for Housework. To talk about marxist feminism as a strain of radical feminism is utter nonsense, just plain wrong and not a matter of opinion or interpretation, because it confuses completely separate and opposed intelletual traditions.
This is not just pedantic hair splitting. It matters because the intellectual basis of radfem *requires* the rejection of marxist approaches, it *requires* various theories of false consciousness in relation to sexuality and desire, it *requires* an approach to gender that sees 'male' and 'female' as stable and monolithic conceptions that can only be broken down by the actions of a 'consciousness raising' elite sisterhood. It requires all this because it locates patriarchy in sexuality, not in the division of labour, not in the processes of accumulation, but in the processes of desire which it sees as shaped almost entirely by the operation of male power to serve the needs of male power.
To conflate this approach with other non-reformist brands of feminism is to combine things which are fundamentally different. Even before we get to the serious problems in radfem, this is making an absolute nonsense of any of the arguments you're putting forward because you are constantly removing your own foundations by moving between fundamentally incomensurable ways of looking at the world.
Dec 29 2006 14:16
#30
ticking_fool wrote:
treeofjudas wrote:
Not, that's not the whole point of radical feminism. You are correct in saying that there are some radical feminists who refer to male and female as "classes." They're called Marxist feminists, and they are not the definitive strain of radical feminism.Please, for god's sake, understand what is being said to you. "Radical feminism" is not just feminism that is radical to be stood against say "bourgeois" or "reformist" feminism. It is a distinct intellectual tradition of its own that explicitly rejects other strains of feminism that do not see gender as the primary and overriding contradition in our societies. Radical feminism, particularly in the work of MacKinnon (for example in Towards a Feminist Theory of the State), but also elsewhere, explicitly rejects those strands of feminism that use marxist tools, whether it's the crude 'secondary contradiction' bollocks peddaled by those within various Leninist groups, or the more sophisticated tradition that comes out of Italy and Wages for Housework. To talk about marxist feminism as a strain of radical feminism is utter nonsense, just plain wrong and not a matter of opinion or interpretation, because it confuses completely separate and opposed intelletual traditions.
This is not just pedantic hair splitting. It matters because the intellectual basis of radfem *requires* the rejection of marxist approaches, it *requires* various theories of false consciousness in relation to sexuality and desire, it *requires* an approach to gender that sees 'male' and 'female' as stable and monolithic conceptions that can only be broken down by the actions of a 'consciousness raising' elite sisterhood. It requires all this because it locates patriarchy in sexuality, not in the division of labour, not in the processes of accumulation, but in the processes of desire which it sees as shaped almost entirely by the operation of male power to serve the needs of male power.
To conflate this approach with other non-reformist brands of feminism is to combine things which are fundamentally different. Even before we get to the serious problems in radfem, this is making an absolute nonsense of any of the arguments you're putting forward because you are constantly removing your own foundations by moving between fundamentally incomensurable ways of looking at the world.
word bruv!
and yourself comrade, the march of history does not forget even left communists.