Why are there womens councils?

Why are there womens councils?


Nothing wrong with it, Holla Forums just refuses any thing outside economics because they don't want to be bullied by the rest of 4/8chansl

In the middle east I wouldn't really say women's councils are a bad idea

this, basically
it's too much of a shock for them to not segregate men and women, the fact that they have this much political influence in the first place is very new

give them some time, the middle east has to rebuild secularism (which has been gone for a few decades) amongst the fires of fundamentalism

Women segregate themselves in the West all the time too…

Humans continue to divide themselves along arbitrary lines, just as they have done for the rest of history. It is not surprising - just slightly sad.

Because it's the middle east you fucking tool.
Why is it a problem?

do you have a real arguement?

Yeah. Why is it a problem?

I never said it was a problem I asked why they have it and just saying muh middle east isn't an argument.

Because it's a backwards religious shit hole, and they decided if they were to create a secular and feminist society in a backwards religious shit hole, they might need the perspective.

why would they want to create a feminist society, that hasn't worked out well in the west

yeah YPJ are totally like Anita Sarkeesian

this isn't an argument

It's helped me a lot, and I'm a white guy, so yeah lel.

Neither is "feminists ruined the west" when they have improved the west.
If you think the world, and history, begins and ends with reddit posters that's your own problem.

nice anecdote

you're arguing against points I've never made

Islamic Gender segration.

I'm just one of the many many people who has been aided by feminism in their life, even on this board, whether they will admit it or not.

I disagree. You say it worked out poorly in the west, which is not the case. You conflate all feminism with your picture there, because you have tunnel vision and can only see the internet or something?

Curious. How did it help you?

Everyone in this thread has terminal stage autism

I'm gay.

In extremely patriarchal societies this kind of thing is necessary for women's liberation.

The Bolsheviks did similar things and pretty much every third world socialist revolution.

I'm bisexual. I'm curious as to how feminism in it's modern form has benefited you.

People have the idea that there's segregation between women and men in the YPG/J but there isn't. Units are mixed. It's just that the women in said units are allowed to come together and decide things autonomously if they want. So for example YPJ have probably made special services and experts available for Yezidi women freed from ISIS as the trauma that comes with sexual enslavement and rape that comes at the hands of men is better dealt with by women.

They also have female only cooperatives which encourage women to free themselves from dependency on their husbands and to be an active contributor to their community. These women are coming from very reactionary areas a lot the time and might not feel comfortable yet working with men so I don't see why these things are bad.


It's the fucking Middle East dude. Where women are actual property, female genital mutilation is widely practiced, and where there is literal patriarchy (i.e. the rule of an elder male over a tribe).

Why the fuck do you follow an ideology which will burn your corpse after it did human experiments on you?

no its not. a change in the base of society is necessary for the PEOPLE's liberation


Marriage is an option. Less right wing social values around, only got beat up for it once as opposed to what I could imagine would happen in say, the middle east.

Muslim men need to be educated not to rape.

Jesus fucking Christ, you people need to stop with this.

Social organization can't just change over night when you change the base. That's fucking stupid. If you have a society where women aren't even allowed to go outside without their husband or a male family member, then women aren't suddenly going to be seen as completely equal citizens by all members of society when capitalism is abolished.

The tunnel vision on this board is a result of repressed idpol about, 60% of the time.

I'm a Asserist so I don't see how finding the male and female body attractive puts me on a desth list. The SA were a bunch of fags and Ernst Röhm officially earns the title of Bear. I'm not flaunting my dick at everything. I actually hate dating guys but my peepee says go for it. I plan on having kids with a woman so I don't see how my once a month homosexual jerk session is a bad thing. I don't promote my sexuality and I abhore the casual sex and disease rates among homosexuals. Also Imma say gay bars are trash. The whole fucking building smells like sweat and leather.

I see

no one said that was going to be the case. That isn't even the goal. the goal is worker ownership of the means of production and prvivate property, then the abolition of wages and the state. We aren't going to over throw capitalism and suddenly live in a utopia but eventually we'll get there.

Worker ownership of the means of production, abolition of private property*


When you think about how most of Holla Forums's initial first wave base were people who were TOO conservative for halfchan's Holla Forums, it makes sense that that would spill over onto our board.

Yes, eventually we'll get there. And to expedite that process it makes sense to form things like women's councils/other movements for oppressed groups and such in conjunction with the abolition of capitalism.

How does that expedite the process and not distract from the process?

Because women are half the proletariat and it therefore makes sense to try and help liberate them from old sexist mores.

but the only way for the proletariat to be liberated is through ownership of the means of production. Anything else only elevates some people of X identity to a status of muh privilege

Oppressed people don't fight for people who oppressing them. Therefore, if male proles don't think women should show be allowed to show any skin or that women should only speak when spoken to, female proles probably aren't gonna hop aboard that train with any enthusiasm.

you're thinking like an identitarian now.

Its not about being a man prol or a fem prol its about working for the full product of your labor.

They're bookchinites, they're not trying to create a micronationalist society.

Sure, tell women in the Middle East to not worry about the fact that you can literally sell them off to get married and then rape them and beat them with a stick. Because fighting for their liberty would be "identitarian".

Of all the shitty aspects of feminism by the most cancerous is the way it inserts itself into and claims the accomplishments of the civil rights movement/gay rights movement.

You realize the women's' councils exist primarily because of conservative social mores in the Middle East, right?

It's not some kind of progressive stack thing, it's that they'll get too much resistance letting women talk to men who aren't their husbands.

That was exactly my point.

In the Middle East, it *is* progressive to have women's councils because the alternative is to have half the working population either unallowed or too afraid to express their opinion on public.

the same thing was happening in the west and it changed through the collapse of feudalism not feminism

I wish the left could do this with communism. Just start making claims about the various social ills communism has solved, despite having very little to do with them. We could claim communism ended slavery, gave women the vote, eradicated smallpox, and invented the internet. Hopefully in a few years we'd have some idiots repeating those lies online, claiming that communism made their lives better.

Because arab men don't want to interact with women.

You can associate yourselves to things like that with creativity, and you should.

Because the middle east is spooked about genders.

the word filter works, people!

I'd "segregate" myself from retards like you if I were a woman, too

Yeah, it's the Middle East, and that's a good reason, for now. Still, isn't it more important that women are represented in all councils? And if that is to be the case, how do these elections work? Do women have their own separate lists for everything? That just feels clumsy and wrong, IMHO. What if the normal election would have already yielded adequate representation of both sexes? So, here is a relatively simple way of proportionally electing a council without party lists or lists for men and women, and with a quota for the sexes that only interferes as much with the result as necessary to meet the quota:

The base method is Thiele voting. That is, people vote with approval-type ballots, meaning you can approve as many candidates as you want. Thiele works like this: The first seat goes to the person approved on the biggest number of ballots. Then, all the ballots that approved that candidate get their voting power reduced. Then the next seat is allocated, and then again, ballots supporting that candidate get their voting power reduced. And so on.

How much voting power a mark on a ballot has is not directly dependent on how many other marks are on the ballot, only the marks approving candidates who got a seat reduce the power of the other marks on the ballot. The general formula for the weight of a mark on a ballot during the count is
= 1/(number of candidates approved on the ballot who already got a seat + 1)

The quota of the sexes can be added in a rather simple way: A minimum quota for one sex logically implies a maximum quota for the other. So, suppose the quota is a guaranteed minimum representation of 40 % of both sexes* (last time I checked, that was proposed for Rojava). This also means there is a 60 % maximum quota. So, for assigning a five-seat council, this means no more of 3 seats can belong to the same sex. Given that Thiele does this thing where you assign one seat, fiddle with the ballot weights, assign another seat, fiddle with the weights again and so on, all you have to do is erase one sex when it reaches this maximum. This rule actually makes the count easier, as there are fewer candidates to keep track off. If the standard Thiele allocation already meets the quota, that's what you get here as well. If standard Thiele falls one seat short of meeting the quota, only one seat is allocated differently; if standard Thiele doesn't meet quota by two seats, two seats are allocated differently.

*btw. a minimum quota should be always defined as X % rounded down to next integer.

Got a book on that?

YPJ members also do not have to accept orders from YPG commanders. In practice this probably isn't much of an issue, but it is interesting.

fuck off

That's because the YPJ is a separate force from the YPG. Within the YPG I imagine it's expected for the women to obey the commander's orders same as the men.

blame Foucault tbh

No. Do you have any particular question?

Fuck off

yeh lets create a male supremacist society like saudi arabia thats muj muj bedda

Kurdish society before was heavily patriarchal with honour killings and such, it seems pretty reasonable tbh


The pragmatics of it. How to count the votes, how the whole process goes.

Yeah dude, feminism has ruined wethtern civilizashun because they want to censor muh video game titties.


I think I might be bisexual


That's in the post.

*everyone in this board

I hope this clarifies it.

Because women are weak and need extra help.

Clarifying the clarification: If you have already read about proportional approval voting, you might not recognize this as the Thiele method. There are two types of Thiele, non-sequential and sequential, and this is the sequential one, which is somewhat less accurately proportional and far easier to count.

There is no doubt that the females are weaker fighters. They take almost double the casualties with half the deployed forces, and the USMC has recently reiterated this study. Because Rojava is fighting for its very survival, this is irrelevant. Needs of the military and all that is what comes first, on that same note, this would not be the case after a socialist state is established. The military would no longer need these women to be in front-line combat. However, politically women should be no different from men, so I don't like the idea of women being segregated, but I also don't know what the situation is. Ideally women should be integrated as much as possible instead.

Yeah it's pretty necessary in the Middle East.

Its a form of chauvinism towards men.

Read Ocalan.

The idea is to make sure everyone is participating politically and militarily. Which in the end makes for a stronger, more cohesive and functional society. It's a way of uprooting entrenched power structures in a socially stratified region.
Doing this also breaks the psychological conditioning that leads to politically excluded not actively participating in political life in the first place. And it puts a greater emphasize on competency rather than aggressive ambition.
As seen in practice, it's highly successful.

"Feminism" in Rojava has little to do with feminism in the west. They're not looking for token minorities or "muh muh privilege". They want to re-alter the power structure so you don't end up with 50% of the population (at minimum) not meaningfully participating in political life.