You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Material Reality’ tag.
My apologies for having to source fox news, but hey when you find an authentic feminist given public air time, you have to spread the word.
Shulasmith Firestone is one of the important thinkers of the Second Wave of feminism. In her book the Dialectic of Sex she tackles some of the big problems facing women, and more importantly, lays out a path to understand not only how history has played out, but the why. She correctly observes it is the sexual-reproductive dynamic between men and women that set the foundation of how society has evolved – and how it continues to evolved today.
Firestone’s analysis foregrounds the importance of biology and sex in human interactions making it the antitheses of the current gender ideology (that features the denial of material reality and sex) we happen to be plagued with today. We can root some of our criticism of gender ideology in the cogent analysis presented by Firestone.
“I have attempted to take the class analysis one step further to its roots in the biological division of the sexes. We have not thrown out the insights of the socialists; on the contrary, radical feminism can enlarge their analysis, granting it an even deeper basis in objective conditions and thereby explaining many of its insolubles. As a first step in this direction, and as the ground work for our own analysis we shall expand Engels’s definition of historical materialism. Here is the same definition quoted above now rephrased to include the biological division of the sexes for the purpose of reproduction, which lies at the origins of class:
Historical materialism, is that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all historic events in the dialectic of sex: the division of society into two distinct biological classes for procreative reproduction, and the struggles of these classes with one another; in the changes in the modes of marriage, reproduction and child care created by these struggles; in the connected development of other physically-differentiated classes [castes]; and in the first division of labour based on sex which developed into the [economic-cultural] class system.
And here is the cultural superstructure, as well as the economic one, traced not just back to economic class, but all the way back to sex:
All past history [note that we can now eliminate ‘with the exception of primitive stages’] was the history of class struggle. These warring classes of society are always the product of the modes of organisation of the biological family unit for reproduction of the species, as well as of the strictly economic modes of production and exchange of goods and services. The sexual-reproductive organisation of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone Work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of economic, juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical and other ideas of a given historical period.”
Pretty much every conversation I’ve had with people who, when it comes to basic biological facts, decide it necessary to jump through tortured hoops to evade this simple question. Is there a more clear example of men trying to impose their version of reality on the world? We cannot change sex (facts, don’t care about your feelings even hurt male ones). Yet we have a whole swath of the population that are willing to throw down to avoid the facts of the matter. I’m heartened that I’m starting to see women taking the piss out those who support male delusions of gender.
[Source: The Vancouver woMen’s March Twitter]
Funny sad really as the male entitlement that females have to deal with daily has begun to negatively affect those backing the whole gender identity hoopla. The truth as it was in the beginning as it is now – threatening male entitlement is verboten. I wonder how long it will be before the good doctor is called a T*RF.
http://auntiewanda.tumblr.com/post/166415122696/spencer-shayy-gender-critical-appspot-james
“White working-class women appear to be more open than men are to progressive appeals (62 percent of them voted for Trump, as opposed to 72 percent of their male counterparts). That suggests that the most promising path forward would be to agitate for a robust economic agenda focused on women’s needs: a $15 minimum wage, universal child care and pre-K, paid family leave, free college, and tough laws that crack down on wage theft and guarantee fair scheduling and equal pay for women. One of the strengths of such an agenda is that its appeal is hardly limited to women. In our brave new economy, increasing numbers of men now labor under the kinds of precarious working conditions—low wages, minimal benefits, little if any security—that have traditionally characterized women’s employment. Policies like these would help the men, too. They would not be not just righteous, but politically pragmatic.
But it’s not only the Democratic Party that is badly in need of reform. The feminist movement, too, needs to reorient itself. Feminists would be well-advised to ease up on pop culture navel-gazing and corporate pseudo-feminist drivel like Lean In. They need to shift their central focus from the glass ceiling to the sticky floor, which, after all, is the place where most women dwell. A feminism that delivers for working-class women by addressing their material needs could expand feminism’s base and bring about a much-needed feminist revival. A feminism that delivers for working-class women by addressing their material needs could radically expand feminism’s base. And should feminism once again become a vibrant bottom-up mass movement instead of a top-down elite concern, there’s no telling how far it could go.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…