Allies of Queer Marxism?

Hey I know this doesn't quite fit with leftypol's ideology, but it seems like the closest place to ask. I fully support sexual liberation and abolishing heteronormative social structures. It seems like a necessary facet of any worthwhile revolution (along with Marxist labor restructuring), but I don't feel compelled at all to do anything but engage in heteronormative monogamy. What do?

Can you support the abolition of both class and gender if you don't stray from gender or sexual normativity yourself? I unironically support fully automated luxury gay space communism but hope there's room for cis-hetero folks too. Is there a way to allow for the continued existence of cis-hetero folks without them oppressing everyone else? Are they always seen as equivalent to the bourgeoisie? I know in a lot of rad-queer circles the goal is to abolish straightness, but where do non-queer allies fit in if they truly believe that a leftist revolution must be intersectional?

Other urls found in this thread:

eipcp.net/transversal/0811/puar/en
feministcurrent.com/2014/06/25/why-consent-is-not-enough/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Kill yourself you fucking faggot who the fuck cares

Yes, you can live an ordinary sexual life. It's called "live and let live".

Is this bait? Im not even average leftypol "ever talking about problems with sexuality in relation to society is identity politics" but holy fuck this sounds like some full on liberal tumblr shit

"cis" and "heteronormative" dont exist, theyre impossible ideals. no fucking of course you and your gf dont need to fuck other people or whatever and youre not oppressing anyway by prefering benis in bagina jfc kill yourself

straight dude checking in. it's weird not being the hardcore majority anymore right? There's a place for all comrades.

Stop freaking the fuck out and just know you'll probably be in a relationship with a bi girl instead of a straight girl.

Queerness is a spook.

like 75% of leftists are not cis/straight, just look on twitter

Idk man not sure I entirely understand what you're getting at but as other ancom poster said I'm all for live and let live.

Yes, let's do away with this thing called humanity.


No, your correct biological functioning causes heteronormativity because penis-in-vagina is what reproduces society and therefor out competes gayspacesexcommunism.

don't kill pro-social spooks

You've turned me from a Whitlamite to a Hawke… Hawker?

I'm the guy with the booze, anyway. What I'm saying is your post drives me to drink. That's the message I'm trying to get across here.

Autism, many cases like it. Sad!

kill them all, "pro-social" or otherwise

Sorry I just got out of a critical theory grad program. I still default to the terminology whenever I talk. I get that gender and sexuality are spectrums nobody is really totally cisgendered or heterosexual yada yada yada.

I mean honestly all of that sounds fine. I like being around people that aren't like me and don't mind not being a majority. I'm probably going to get married in the next year or two, but if I weren't, I've got no problem dating someone who is bisexual.


This is what I thought, but where does Holla Forums fit in then? I know people here are against identity politics, but often it comes off as anti-intersectionality too. I definitely get the hate for liberal identity politics that distract from economic oppression, but it also seems worthwhile to advocate for the acceptance of people who don't fit in social structures which perpetuate capitalism.

...

**I don't have a problem being a minority, not a majority

I think some of the people here were a little mean to you just so you know. However, of course Marxism isn't about destroying straightness or whatever. I personally am bi so of course I think gsyv rights are important but intersectionality in the SJW sense it's just ludicrous. Oppression is about power, destroy the ability to force your will unto others and only consensual relationships will follow. For example, the big liberal fight over LGBT was gay marriage, but this affected nobody but a few old rich queens. The Marxist issue is the homelessness rate among LGBT youth. How would a parent control their child if they had the absolute right to move out at will and support themselves with a job suited for their abilities?

The point isn't to wipe out heterosexuals but to make heterosexuality meaningless. Sexuality as a distinct sphere of life must be abolished. Aditionally, I suggest you look into some radical queer critiques of intersectionality: eipcp.net/transversal/0811/puar/en


Power functions precisely through consent, this is a liberal view. The materiality of social life extends beyond economics.

Oh, I see, so the suicidal gay teen who has to live with his deranged evangelical parents is consenting to their power because he doesn't want to be in the street?

First time I heard a leftist say this. Bravo.

I'm saying that power isn't coercion and that defining power as coercion only works to hide how power works and what it does.

You should read Foucault and post-structuralist, feminist thinkers then, it doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that power is consented to, but that "consent" is a mere illusion and function of power.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun.

Is this postmodernism I smell?

what

Isn't their point exactly that consent is the ultimate standard? (example: any sexual act or relationship is fine -liberating and empowering even- as long as it is consensual)

Power flows from those who accept it. Mao didn't have a billion-barreled rifle pointing at China, he had people who held rifles for him. Raw, physical, threat is a very limited instrument when it comes to power. The more power one has over people, the less coercion he has to use. The strongest man in the room only has to stand up to stifle the quarreling.

No, they say the exact opposite. The agency of the rational subject is just a perfidious form of domination. Nothing is ever fine for Foucault, as all relations are constituted by power, and the threat of domination is ever present, so we must be hypervigilant and constantly struggle.

That much was already clear to me, Foucault is a sissy Nietzsche. But why is it then, that feminists who otherwise hold domination as constitutive -harking back to Foucault, in diluted form or not-, completely drop this when it comes to the issue of consent (especially when it comes to sexuality)? Leading to the conclusion that the only issue with any oppression is its subjects not consenting to it, that oppression is therefor not necessarily to be abolished but to be perfected.

Because they are liberals and there is a great effort to recuperate feminism. In radical circles and amongst feminist thinkers this isn't the case at all. A couple of years ago this was a popular article in feminist online spaces: feministcurrent.com/2014/06/25/why-consent-is-not-enough/