Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-1

ETERNAL_PRISONER wrote

"Phallogocentric"?!! Just because a theory doesn't display gender issues as the main force to change nature, it doesn't make it automatically "phallogocentric". But maybe I'm just a backward "brocialist"...

2

Dumai wrote

a metaphysical system of binary oppositions, which is what drives dialectical synthesis no matter how much marxists try to downplay that fact, will always privilege the masculine in western culture

-1

ETERNAL_PRISONER wrote

This is interesting, because I understand marxism differently. I understand marxism as the abolition of gender.

2

Dumai wrote

oh i ain't denying marxism has made some very valuable contributions to feminism, i just feel like its metaphysical underpinnings betray some serious limitations on this subject

-1

ETERNAL_PRISONER wrote

If that's the case, you should have no reason to brand the whole theory with obscure neo-freudian terms.

1

Dumai wrote

actually phallogocentricism pretty neatly describes the problem with most metaphysical schools of thought regarding gender, marxism included