Trouble #11: Destroying Domination

Today, decades of hard-fought victories in the struggle for female emancipation are under threat from waves of resurgent misogyny. From attacks on abortion and reproductive justice, to the revival and spread of religious fundamentalism and authoritarian nationalism… patriarchy is on the march. Meanwhile, as the corporate media celebrates the #TimesUp movement initiated by rich women in Hollywood, femicide, sexual exploitation and rape continue to tear more marginalized communities apart.

Systems of male domination lie at the very roots of capitalism and state power. During periods of political crisis and counter-revolution, women, and all those who eschew their socially-assigned gender roles, are often the first to be targeted for repression and increased violence. In part, this is because of the important position that women have always occupied, as the beating hearts of communities of resistance. But this repression is also intended as a token gesture to working-class men that are upset by their declining social and economic status, and who rather than focus their rage at their true enemies – the rich and powerful – have historically and consistently opted to clutch ever tighter to their positions of relative power and control over their would-be female comrades.

In this month’s edition of Trouble, sub.Media takes a look at patriarchy as an enduring system of social, economic and political control, and shares stories from some of the front-line struggles being waged by women around the world – from Indigenous communities fighting against the colonial dispossession of their lands, to the challenges faced by migrants forced from their homes by economic inequality, climate change, and war.

Attached: destroying-domination-thumb.jpg (1920x1080, 149.57K)

inb4 muh idpol

great contribution thanks

Good to see submedia's new lineup +stim on the news

The content's real tight, informative and appealing.

Attached: FB_IMG_1521528556810.jpg (540x540, 47.54K)

You don't dominate women and derive surplus value from them? What a fag.

Attached: 158.png (447x378, 11.3K)

Turns out Trump was right.

Protip: this shitty joke wasn't funny when you first made it and it won't magically become funny at a future time either.

Leftypol: a place where people can have a laugh and definitely not a place full of recalcitrant, resentful autists.

Hey I think I'm the first to use dickletariat. And if you've got a problem with my comedy report it to Party they won't do shit, they know I'm the only one who's willing to be paid in little red books.

Attached: 1471709074467.jpg (403x345, 59.91K)

Beta : "h-hey -"

CHAD : *siezes the means of production*

If you are laughing at that you need to leave Holla Forums before you get permabanned for being underage.

bumping this thread

They hit hard on the liberal buzzwords pretty early on, which was cringeworthy, but then they took a pivot towards a class-based analysis of how racial and gender discrimination solidify the power of capital.

So I think the intended audience for this is not people who are already radical, I think it's meant to radicalize idpol liberals.

Hahahahahahahaha! I'm a dickletariat too comrade. Cum! We must seize the means of reproduction with our dicks XD

A feminazi triggered? How surprising. Let me guess, you have a fish face too?

You're really perpetuating the leftists can't be funny myth.


After lurking Holla Forums I became a TURF, not because they have good ideas or anything just because hoochie is so fucking anoying and I bet they still lurk.

That's some pure autism right there. I am now an anarchist-exclusive radical communist thanks to you.

Stuff like this fucks me up. Look at this for example.
This is just straight mythical, fascist-esque story telling. "Our good white boys have always dun good things in good land, we deserve good land. It's just like these feelgood rallying points around race, sex, even consumer identities, and they all have these myths and legends about who they are. You can even see this in some super old feminist literature where women are the more courageous, better halves that just keep on getting magically dunked on, and now they will glorious uprising and succeed. This too
During counterrevolution, the women are targeted first? Because, maybe I've just been confused, but I thought the main targets of counter revolutionary activities were revolutionaries.
This stuff just annoys me. It seems to be a common thread between empty organizations. These sort of myths, or perhaps they are just empty rallying points. I don't think it is a coincidence that nationalist rhetoric employs these liberally, or that Jordan Peterson is so obsessive of them.
I don't know. I truly hate this stuff for making me think with no solution. Maybe feminists and socialists should just stay separated, but I don't want Socialism with nogirlsallowed. It also just seems like a huge waste of time.
Bad blogpost, I know

Seeing phrases like "communities of resistance" in lefty news is starting to turn me off of politics

I just get these stupid images of American antifa carrying some stupid sign about "defending our communities from racists" where it's like 40 of them and maybe 1 redneck.

HOly shit dude… lol you pretty much expressed my exact above sentiment and yes I could not agree more. Reading htis made me wanna fucking puke.

Since when is any race/gender/class/whatever inherently good or bad, more or less moral? What a crock of liberal horseshit. I feel like I'm not even a left winger anymore because I run into this kind of rhetoric all the time now. OR maybe i just never noticed it before but fuuuuuuck

feminist socialists just need to drop the attempts to turn the two things into the same thing. They're different issues, and obviously, as a socialist, you might see other issues from a socialist perspective and see how capitalism relates to them, but that doesnt mean its literally the same thing.
but that probably wont happen, because "radicalism" about social issues is an emotional substitute for actual revolution for the people who take it up. if I'm charitable to them.

There's nothing mythical about historical facts. Are you even aware the immense contributions women made to revolutionary movements?

These two post were some of the least funny uses of the English language in history. I'd rather have read the court proceedings for the Apple v. Samsung law suits than this fucking garbage.

You're missing the point.

It doesn't really seem like it.

You are, but I made the post knowing somebody would.

Anyways, I never denied that women have made contributions to revolution. My point was that so many movements have these tales of success, glory, whatever, that either aren't true or are heavily construed to fit an agenda.
This is an example from the article. Women are not often the first to be targeted for repression and violence during counter-revolution. It's just not what happens. People are so rarely targets of anything, really. Widespread injustice effects tons of different people at once, this type of speech is simply undialectical. At best it is obfuscative and at worst it is manipulative.
A great example of speech like this can be found, like I said earlier, in Nationalist rhetoric.
Take Israel for a great example. "Muh based Jews are targeted forever by repression because we don't have majority country, so yeah Israel". (It still tickles me how this implies the Jews will now oppress their minorities). Stuff like this is just moral shock and awe, platitudes and halftruths transmuted into social smoke grenades. These stories are used to quell critical thinking, and I rightfully dislike them.

It's not an article, it's a short blurb to make you watch the video. And it is not "undialectical". The text is about women, not people in general. Of course it is going to talk about women specifically instead of writing some overly general things about how all kinds of people are effected by repression. Of course it is going to mention that they indeed participated in revolutionary politics and had to pay the price for it, despite the widespread memes that women are not part of history and not interested in politics, or if they do, they are "soft" and not radicals. I genuinely don't understand what your problem is. Are you denying the roles women played in revolutionary movements and the repression they faced because of it? Are you upset that it's not written like an encyclopedia?

Attached: 6b11ae4f358d81db60d9491622955d8d47760d05.jpg (658x1000, 152.56K)


Attached: HillaryClintonSyasSheWonTHePlacesThatMatter.mp4 (1280x720, 5.02M)

Yeah fuck this shit, I’m otta here.

oh well I guess that settles that then

Did a crippled person shit in your mouth or something?

Isn't it the other way around?

That isn't really his argument though. He's not saying "how dare this focus on women and not people in general", his point is how needlessly aggrandizing the rhetoric is even for something focusing on women specifically.
No, he literally said he didn't. Stop with the kafka trap bullshit.

So what's "needlessly aggrandizing" in this example that they used:
During periods of political crisis and counter-revolution, women, and all those who eschew their socially-assigned gender roles, are often the first to be targeted for repression and increased violence.
I can't read minds, I have to use what they wrote, and what they wrote is that focusing on a particular instead of the general is "undialectical" and probably fascism.

No, Engles makes it very clear in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State how patriarchal relations were necessary for the state to form and capitalism to develop. One could argue that capitalism no longer depends on it and it could do away with it, yet it's still there.

He already elaborated what is problem is regarding that same quote twice already dude just shut the fuck up damn fucking silly mother fucker shit

Yes, because women were treated fairly and in power in every communist society ever.

I would like to point out there was only one system that put them in power and they promptly began destroying their countries.

No he elaborated on what happens in the next sentence.
Is any silly mother fucker here able to respond to criticism with anything more than lame ass one liners, anime girls and non-sequitur questions?

lmao this shit is going to end nowhere but the most absurd scenario where battle of the sexes, Nazi masturbation fantasys etc are real

But that's a factually true statement and you claimed just a post before that they do not deny that.

not me dumb queer
eat dicks and die faggot

They denied that people get repressed at all, you shouldn't take them seriously.

Calm down, you literally said it in >>2453496:

You have absolute dogshit reading comprehension if that's what you got from his post. I think the more likely explanation is that you're being a disingenuous fuck though.

who dis

I made this post

I am not any of these people

Two people can say similar things and not be a samefag, shocking I know

no, he didn't, he just followed up one unsubstantiated claim with another

you're both stupid fuckers

So the real retard here is and

(You)r comment is what they mean when they say the Left can't meme.