tanattyn

5

tanattyn wrote

Patriarchy theory in modern discourse is usually presented as the idea that men form a political class that exploit women as a subordinate class. And this person is cleverly pointing out a problem in that theory: it doesn't explain women that prefer patriarchy to feminist struggle, and I'll explain why his objection shouldn't be entertained at all.

Yes, men generally act in the interests of men as a class, in capitalism. But a class made of almost exactly half of a society wouldn't develop on its own. If everyone has a significant ability to make and use arms, men wouldn't have enough of an advantage over women to gain much supremacy without causing so much destruction to their society as to not be worth it. Male supremacy exists, obviously, however, and this is because it's not the full story.

For patriarchy to maintain itself, there has to be competition between men, and an increasing monopoly of violence awarded to the men that either compete better or otherwise acquire the results of successful competition. The other end to this is a handful of men, straight men included, being forced into sex work (which the culture is quite aware of, see My Private Idaho, prison rape culture, etc), and a few boys being raped or even sex-trafficked. Also there must a handful of women being held above most of what is done to any group of woman by men, or the biggest losers between men by other men. The Queen of England is the prime example. Liberals will defend patriarchy with the women that would suffer more by attacking the system than by enduring what they must suffer by it. And so they mystify the pleasures they share with these women, at the expense of women and a handful of men, in this ideal of women "volunteering" for their subordination. And by this sharing they justify also the pleasures they have at the expense of the voluntary women along with women as a class. This is also however just a function of competition between men.

Rich men know that sex with a woman that is much closer to truly consenting to sex with him, is going to give the rich men more pleasure, it's psychological. But they stay rich men out of fear of being turned into poor men by others. So they keep both the wage gap, and keep most men's livelihoods so precarious that women can't be bothered to fuck them without, i.e. in the lumpen situation, pure coercion (trafficking) or a sex-work-or-starve life situation. They also have to violate and isolate women from men and each other so much that most lumpen women can't get and keep a job, or sell drugs etc. And this, again, is such shitty sex for men, and drugs are so destructive in a poor person's psychology, that it's not enough to console them and a lot of terrible shit happens between lumpen men so they aren't just destroying themselves. In fact if they all did just self-harm or stop fighting (i.e. the gang peace resulting in the police crackdown that the LA Riots were in turn a response to), patriarchy and capitalism would collapse.

It's all circular reinforcement, too. Without class divisions between men, they wouldn't be trying to turn sexual reproduction or drugs into painkillers or to psych them up to succeed in the competitions so they can get more money to get more sex/drug/etc painkillers, etc. And if they weren't setting women at each other's throats, it would all fall apart too. And it's even more circular cause again, if everybody, or just all women, decide to stop doing all this, cause they found a better solution all at the same time and were just, done with the rest, here come the cops and even more than the cops to set Hell back up. The sexual and economic Hell of the hood and the massively impoverished nation, is the hell upon which the Virgin Mary herself, and the Queen of England and the wives of the billionaire men are made.

So I'm done hearing this bullshit about BDSM, happy housewives/call-girls in the suburbs, femme-as-inherently-revolutionary and "empowering" women's products, and false (secretly, terrifyingly oppressive) opposites to these like TWEF/SWEF nonsense or little mock-revolutions like androgyny-as-inherently-revolutionary (which just end up becoming reiterations of class privilege between women) ... and all other distractions from the brutal, naked competition in capitalism, and maximizing brutal, naked, clear-sighted struggle against capitalism.

[edit, addendum: Yes, I did just imply what you might have noticed, but also another thing. Perfect sexual consent I believe is impossible in a situation where no relationship is without the lack of trust and mutual goodwill and non-coercion inherent in capitalist relations. And the other half of that is that the anti-capitalist must necessarily always push relationships toward that perfection. To do otherwise can only tongue-in-cheek be called manarchism/brocialism, when actually it cannot be anything but pro-capitalist effort in the end, since patriarchy is extricable from economic competition. These MRAs have no intention of liberating boy sex trafficking victims and hustlers, out of fear this would eliminate their rights to rape women which they've won from both women and other men. In fact, they are intensely, aware, that they are the most misandrist group of people on the planet by far. It's a mixture of relative privilege, and being exceptionally possessed by extreme fear of other men - domestically and fear of other patriarchal powers - as well as sometimes a deathly fear of vengeance from women, that prevents them from being proper leftists.]

1

tanattyn wrote

Did I get hacked? WTF? I just saw a moment on this page that doesn't exist anymore, where the comments were just 118 in number, and anticlericalwars was logged in. I refreshed and I was logged out and it was the correct current number of comments. Hindsight ofc tells me I should have screenshotted that.

My Redditors, you need to stop telling me you're this fragile.

Reply to [deleted] by /u/deleted

1

tanattyn wrote

You like living in a world where the church keeps raping your kids and your neighbor's kids, everybody's kids. You can't get enough of it. You're so emotionally fragile that you can't enjoy life if someone isn't raping kids.

You are so obsessed with an economy that is founded upon raping children, that you can't do anything but attack their ancient, primary enemies: the witches, the faggots, us that the Roman priests and their predecessor Tacitus called "men in women's clothing", etc. There is no other way to keep society from collapsing constantly than socialism or something further left, than the shitty caricature of socialism that church charity, hospitals etc, is. No difference between church healthcare and social services to the state but patriarchist (and COMPLETELY MYSTERIOUSLY, anti-trans) propaganda. Rural and urban industry, these don't need anti-trans campaigns, most trans people are capable of performing labor. It's just the child-raping, charity-scam-mongering, patriarchy-spewing church that economically needs anti-trans shit to continue.

You are a fucking child-rapist, or you like the paycheck you get maintaining child-rapists. There is no other explanation for attacking trans women and the LGBT by extension.

Reply to [deleted] by /u/deleted

1

tanattyn wrote

Say it. Say it. Say "punch a priest" and send it as a comment, lol. Punch a priest. Punch a fucking priest. Acquaint them with the pavement. Say it.

Tell me I'm just enacting competitive machismo right now. Cause you're a fucking entryist coward.

Reply to [deleted] by /u/deleted

1

tanattyn wrote

You literally just fucking got done saying women were inherently pacifist and men were inherently aggressive the other day, and here you are, still fucking posting irrelevant bullshit about things that the irrelevant bullshit is claiming is irrelevant bullshit.

Imagine every church and modern-day latifunda and prison burning to the ground

Oh shit dude, don't let a trans woman show you up.