Would heightism still exist under Communism

Maybe.

Anyway OP, I don't think those beauty/relationship standards have something to do with the mode of production, so the answer is maybe.

Yes it would, OP, since people prefer different traits, and this form of "heightism" is fine.

"heightism" against people would also be discrimination in a practical sense in some cases. Taller people are better at some things, shorter people are better at others, so certain roles would prefer either tall or short people.

under communism the government would fairly distribute gfs even to short men

Cool, then racism and sexism will still exist too!

Shit forgot my flag.

You stupid leftist need to start embracing natural hierarchies.

idpol pls leave

...

...

they aren't leftists they are simply faggot sjws. no socialism/communism doesn't make everyone equal, equality is a myth.

Height is a spook, comrades.

MGTOWs aren't even that radical. They're more like mainstream feminists. The only ones who even come close to the insanity of radfems are the red-pill pickup-artist movements.

Congratulations! You're now a fascist!

What type of equality are you talking about? Equal treatment without regard to irrelevant personal characteristics? I can't see why that's a myth.

feels good.

Pick up artists at least want to interact with women. MGTOWs are perfectly analogous to radfems.

Instances of heightism will be prosecuted by the vanguard party as with racism, sexism, queerphobia and all other expressions of bigotry.

Was Invader Zim a crypto-Posadist narrative?

More radical than most modern radfems I'd say as they were willing to tackle some of the sentimental bullshit handed down from patriarchy about men's familial "responsibilities." That and they sometimes venture into the territory of how heterosexual women rape men and how its more common then people think; ditto with how women are more likely to abuse their children and their partners.

All in all, I think its misguided just like radfem. But at least it is about more than getting laid on porky's terms.

Critiquing gender roles is one of the cornerstones of feminism you fucking retard.

MGTOWs and MRAs are neckbeard losers who want a piece of the oppression pie. At least feminists have legitimate concerns.

You realize that often the more advanced portion of a movement goes further than the rank and file? Like some radfems were ballsy enough to critique specific forms of oppression some men faced under patriarchy to their credit. But most feminists were fine with having their cake and eating it too and they'd rather fight for more stringent laws or more inclusion.

MRAs certainly aren't the only ones who made these points but you can't say the majority of mainstream feminism today really cares about them. But by all means tell me about how current glories of post-modern feminism like pushing for a larger police state to punish "rapists", manspreading and "always believe the woman" are legitimate concerns :^)

m8, literally every issue you cited is one that is encompassed by feminism. You're just taking the meme-tier stance that all feminism = SJW radfems and liberalism.

To be fair he never said all feminism and was only mentioning the landwhale radfem and sjw types who bitch about manspreading and "affirmative consent"

Tell them how we should get rid of all small-boobed women so they can't spread their inferior small-boobed genes around.

Watch them lose their shit.

I suppose fam, tbh I have more respect for the bitchy structuralist rad-fems of the 70s and early 80s before their apocalyptic meltdown over allying with the Christian right on pornography and descent into meme-tier homophobia and anti-communism.

I'm honestly not sure what being a feminist is supposed to mean anymore when literally anyone can join the patriarchy or perpetuate patriarchal behavior. I've even read some feminist theory proposed by MIM that first world female should be classified socially as men, if not biologically as men, leaving only third world women as the only true "women" of the world. It accounts for much of feminism's fraying around the edges but is still very unsatisfying.

Gay, and now even trans, politics are the new face of the American Empire and its broader cultural projects.Those politics set uneasily with feminism but the idea that we're all in it together in a radical struggle against the male heterosexual-CIS patriarchy is in serious decay.

You can say to look past the SJWs and liberals but you have to admit that the most feminism around us is in bad shape and even genuine minded left-wing feminists don't know what to do.

Some interesting things have happened with proletarian feminism and other Marxist-feminisms but the emphasis on reproductive labor seems to dent Marxism's revolutionary emphasis on productive labor.

When you start looking at patriarchy more and more as a class relation, then the easy oppositions of male and female or straight and queer fall away. Then you see the problem as a class relation and some better Marxist feminists emphasize pornography and economic power as the key to sexual muh privilege and oppression under patriarchy.

But at this point I start to wonder how it all really differs that much from class. Because when you accept there are biological differences between men and women that may show up in gendered behavior, then the idea that men as a whole invented gender as a performative concept to facilitate women's oppression falls away and the notion of a rebellion by a female "class" against a male "class" seems very strange. Why men who supposedly did not live in a society of gendered practice under matriarchy forced this arrangement on society is a strange question.

Now, then some Marxist feminists emphasize leisure-time as another key to gender to tie it to class oppression. Men with class power and leisure-time set the rules here but then so do women of the ruling classes.

It seems under this scheme the poor peasant or slave under pre-capitalist systems of production is as oppressed by patriarchy as a peasant woman. Certainly more so than the wives of the ruling class.

Now, I wonder since we give up feminism as the conception of gender oppression as the primary oppression of society, what does it have to say for a poor male prole busting his ass to feed his family. Even if he buys into patriarchal ideas and living arrangements, isn't it clear that the financial resources and domestic service arrangements that allow bourgeois couples aren't available to him?So then patriarchal ideology makes a certain common-sense and it might be true that it is built into civilized modes of production. When I read many contemporary academic feminist works and blogs it all seems like a big conspiracy to carry out rapes.

From my perspective, when you look at it from a nuanced perspective you wonder whats left of it that is salvageable. No wonder our left-wing sisters haven't come up with a concrete alternative SJW craziness and liberalism.

*allow bourgeois couples more free and egalitarian relations

Kek why

back to pol pls

More problematic is the question of how they would have done so. In order for gendered divisions of labor that overwhelmingly favor men to have formed, one has to assume that even before the loltriarchy existed women still had no agency. This concept is entirely contrary to anthropological findings. It is apparant that women are as complicit in the functions of the societies in which they live as men are.

I would say that a significant part of the problem is that feminist philosophy actively seeks oppression of a particular nature and tries to define it a priori rather than making observations of what is actually there and explaining it. That leads to the inconsistencies between feminist theory and reality (it is always a riot to hear feminists complain that reality is oppressive) that you described. The ideology was built on the quicksand of imaginary concepts.

For feminism to get out of the rut that it has dug itself into, it must first accept that its principles are not as universal as the female of the species, nor is the oppression that it purports to oppose. There is no world-wide mad deadly communist gangster patriarchy, and there never was. There are just varying societies that have varying expectations of the respective sexes. The natures and causes of those expectations should be analyzed individually and addressed accordingly. Of course, doing so does not validate the victimhood that so many feminists seek, but that is often the price of intellectual honesty.

The tallest are born leaders. That is why everybody looks up to them.

Feminists should probably be in favor of superior robot sex dolls in the same way that the factory worker should be in favor of the completely automated assembly line. Women would no longer be seen as sexual, and therefore just be men who are physically weak.

Will there be super robotic sexbots for women? They do love their mechanical devices.

A bit more honest than fourth wave feminists who want to believe that all men are rapists but working as a prostitute can be liberating. Or any number of inconsistent bullshit positions.

exiledonline.com/exterminate-the-men-honoring-andrea-dworkin-a-feminist-who-meant-it-and-paid/

Sometimes you just have to respect someone's commitment to unpopular crazy things tho kinda like posadism

Indeed. I don't think it could have happened without there being a real economic basis for those gendered divisions of labor that favor men that you described. But then the idea that gender is just a myth, a serious of spooky practices ideologically proscribed by male dominated societies takes a serious hit.

Back in the day this contradiction was managed by arguing there's a difference between sex (biological) and gender (spoopy meanie expectations of people of a particular sex). Now, it is more common for people to even argue that biological sex is just another spooky myth.

Would be interested in what particular findings you are referring to. I remember some very interesting findings about how loltriarchy was very fluid in Ancient Mesopotomia and how they boasted levels of gender representation of women in positions of power similar to the modern US. Left unsaid was that class stratification had already occurred there, so if loltriarchy was the first oppression and true class division wouldn't you expect the opposite? I.e. fewer class divisions and more gender divisions?

This makes sense only if the root cause of patriarchy is the mode of production (commodity production in general in this case) then women would cooperate and act complicit with it from the perspective of commonsense, from the lack of a real world alternative.

I've always wondered why if women were living in a feminist paradise before civilization why didn't they unite and rebel against the men? perhaps even with men sympathetic to their cause.

But we only really see feminism as an independent ideology with the development of the capitalist mode of production that de-valued the male labor and spread liberal notions that individuals should be free to trade and work as they please.

Kek. I imagine feminism would have to flow from the particular as you described. This maybe determinism on my part but the more I focus on the material aspect of oppression highlighted by feminists the harder it is to see its alleged difference from class.

...

You forgot

I had in mind particular studies of the Maori and the Duwamish, two complex hunter/gatherer societies. Women also played influential roles in the functioning of the states in societies like those of the North American Great Plains, Alaska, and Australia. Just about anywhere that agrarianism had not taken hold, women held positions of authority.

That plain fact can mean one of only two things. Either women were so effectively suppressed that they had never had the opportunity to start a movement before, or they had never really felt the need to organize before. That the women's liberation movement rose along with capitalism suggests a relationship between the two. Indeed, it is very easy to see how economic factors, particularly waged labor, would have produced the oppressive institutions that feminists decry.

5'7" is not that short for a guy of Chinese descent. Bruce was a big guy in Hong Kong, he just did not look like it standing next to Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

Is that supposed to be bad

it will exist as long as you're a manlet

No. Simply women of the aristocracy had it too well to "revolt", while peasant women had it as bad as men to revolt. (Also, why would they want to go die in pointless wars like their men?).

The point is, people don't organize based on "gender". We organize based on class.
Spartacus didn't say "only men can come fight with us". Neither did slave women say "we will make indepented camps and fight on our own".

After capitalism, though, on one had labor women revolted .. for the same reasons as men. Pay, working conditions and so on. While bourgie women wanted the right to have business and land (and the right to vote, them bourgies, not filthy peasant or slave women!).

Now, from that perspective, you can see why modern feminism is as shit as it is.

It's not about "Marx" or "Gommunism" or "The Left".
It's bourgie spoiled girls, listening to a nomencalture that has no other way to survive, than feed them IDEOLOGY about how they don't get to become scientists and CEOs because "EVIL MEN DON'T WANT YOU TO".
Add to that another academic nomencature that has to "analyze" everything, in order to create "scientific" fields for it to prosper, thus poisoning the well, and now every faggot on pol thinks "sociology is not science. it's commie propaganda".

Well, ofcourse there will.
But it's not about that. It's about power.

...

Right but you didn't have aristocratic women or female slaveholders going around and calling themselves feminists.

That's the difference between gender politics then and now, you can argue that the various female Saint cults and along with the chivalry culture was a kind of proto-feminism. But it was not feminist in a modern sense, maybe not any sense beyond modern feminists echoing it.

I'm not the reposter your replying to but I said the more you try to conceive feminism from a materialist point of view, the more convinced you become that only class abolition can address most serious feminist concerns.

And the subjective stuff? Like will there be kinky sex after the revolution? I can't answer but I can't see any problem with it besides the really-existing power imbalances that make even consensual sex a form of rape.

170cm manlet here. Yes it will. No, I don't care if it does. Accept that you and I cannot be attractive to everyone, brother.
Some blogposting and personal drama: My ex gf was taller than me, every time I see a tall girl I am reminded of how much of a manlet I am
Remember that a lot of important porkies men were manlets, so we have this going on for us :^)
But please, do not fall into the idpol trap.

No, cause they had no means of doing it, the spooks of relegion were too damn high, and society in gerenal had other ways to keep everyone in their place. (Also, there is a reason hysteria was conencted to women).

On all else we agree, but
Please don't go there… PLEASE!

No because the science/engineering renaissance will swiftly derive technology that will free people to look like they want to look. Our bodies are the same physical objects as everything else, with good enough manipulation methods you can change them.

As a consequence of this revolution many of todays inequalities will become irrelevant, and common physiological differences won't define your life experience that much.

Yeah, that can account for some of it but not everything.I think it has more to do with the change in mode of production especially since the industrial revolution opened devalued male labor in key respects and allowed upper-class women the ability to independently retain their class position without being tied to direct economic coercion.

What are you saying here? Is this the typical liberal feminist line that the reason patriarchy works because men don't listen to women's feels? I'm not seeing a concrete reason why women never organized other previous modes of production which by the same logic would have prevented them from doing so under capitalism (as long as they existed). 1789 did strike a sledge-hammer blow against spooks and its not surprising the first inklings of feminist thought appear at the same time.

lol I'll leave that alone, but I didnt invent that, nor did the SJWs or earlier radfem dykes. The door to that position was opened as soon as democratic governments began to recognize that minors who consented to enter prostitution couldn't truly consent. Then came age of consent laws in general and so on *sniff* you know the story…

excellent meme

fugg of, cancer :DDD

Casual reminder that communism won't make it possible for you to get laid any easier.

Wizards seriously need to leave, that or just be fine with it - stoicism is a dank aesthetic.