[Saya]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

His reasoning was bad and everyone that bought into that should feel bad. My point is; is that at best, if you substitute reason for superstitious myth thinking you MIGHT get lucky and come to the right answer on something. But using reason to further the search for better answers. The other? One day they think a magical spell cures headaches; the next... they might stumble upon headache treatment by accident because of some herb they found that numbs the pain. Religion needs reason to stay legitimate. Reason doesn't require religion. Unless you're turning religion into a thing that basically means observing any idea. But if you're gonna do that; I'd have to stress that feminism as a worldview makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than some person assuming that we get reincarnated for a life time mulligan to have another chance to maybe do it right again. lulz.

Funny you mention that because there is a Buddhist story about gender that is thousands of years ahead of feminism and still gets it right much better than many feminists do. I was super surprised to come across that one.

Reason MIGHT be used to find better answers, but mostly I see it being used to stick with answers we think we already have.

You recognize this. Okay. I was starting to worry. But unfortunately, a lack of education is certainly a bad thing. I doubt it's wise to to let such a faulty logic go unchecked by education for long.

That's not their fault though. And even among educated people, not everyone is educated in the same way. I have a good friend who got a degree in biology/biochemistry, got her nursing degree and is going back for her masters, brilliant lady. She can reason out biology very well. She's very bad with the arts though, hates it with a passion and doesn't think too much about it. She's superstitious too. And I mean that in a more folklore than religious sense that she thinks its bad luck to talk about fairies unless its a Tuesday. Not everyone care about the same things and not everyone is willing to put the same effort of thought into the same things. Which is fine, I don't get my panties in a twist when I meet people who know very little about religion or feminism. Like I know tons of women who generally support feminism in a general sense that they know its about equal rights, but isn't into reading about it.

They don't use religious logic, they use logic.

You seemed really hung up on the word 'logic' so I tried to make it easy.

It's unfortunate that you're saying that your only avenue to countering sexism is with superstitious camps. Fuck the dudebros for ruining reason for you. It makes me sad. But if religious observance and superstitious thinking is the only way to get to where you need to be... unfortunately, have at it. That's a terrible shame.

I should say atheist women can be pretty bad too, but what really turns me off about them isn't their sexism but their racism.

Communism doesn't come next. Socialism is necessarily the transition into communism. The socialist state IS a dictatorship of the proletariat and it does mean that bourgeois, capitalists, and other oppressive classes we know today get oppressed themselves from expressing their own brands of oppression. I understand that not allowing a sexist to be a sexist is oppression but I don't care. The sexist can learn an be better through re-education or they can surrender in other ways.

I don't think its oppression to oppress oppressors? But what I'm saying we have no fricken clue what's going to happen next. Could be a Fallout scenario for all we know. What I'm saying is once the pressure is off it probably will pop up again. Or likely, communist revolutionaries will uphold sexism in a more subtle way. I don't think authoritarianism guarantees anyone's rights, really, just means you can't be too overt about it. There needs to be a huge psychological shift.

I don't have a whole lot to say about this, but spare me the great man of history theory. Stalin was one guy who was part of a state apparatus beginning to dabble in revisionism. The USSR did in fact begin to abandon the socialist line. Now weather a result of this was banning abortion or whatever, I can't say. It could also follow that they banned abortion because Russia lost millions and millions of lives due to revolution and war and they needed lives to maintain the revolution. Who knows? But I don't think it's appropriate to hold up a non-western socialist state to western liberal moralism. When the west approaches socialism or a communist state; I can almost guarantee that it would be very unique to the revolutions of other attempts, though incredibly messy in its own way. If you ask me; the only way the West would ever become socialist outright is if it loses WW3 and is forced by the third world plus its own need to pick up the pieces and move on to become so. Right now, the west is far too stable on its own imperialism to take socialism remotely seriously. Hell... even now; considering that flash in the pan OWS stuff... Americans STILL don't even think in terms of class. The only Americans that I've seen that are remotely class conscious are the incredibly poor and the incredibly rich. The middle strata are still unfortunately too stable to care.

I'm using Stalin as an example, but overall the effort to stamp out sexism was a failure in the Soviet Union. Gender roles survived, and Russia had a feminist movement just like any other western country at the time. Lenin granted had his heart in the right place when it came to that, but no authoritarianism stamped it out, and no dictator was above sexism. I hope you take it as no offence that if you were in a position to try and stamp out sexism, you'd fail because you'd still be prone to sexism yourself. I can't say I've ever met any feminist men who were totally above it, just that they were at least open about it. But they definitely still have their blind spots they can't see. Having a token woman adviser wouldn't work because some women can't speak for all women. How would authoritarianism account for intersectionality, without free discourse? How would it deal with the internet, with which restrictions can and often are worked around?

I think the West can eventually progress to socialism, but its at a snail's pace at this rate. Something major has to happen to cause a fast major paradigm shift. And again, unpredictability. You'd think Greece would go socialist instead of fascist, but the risk is there that it can go that way.