Saturday, August 21, 2010

Catharine MacKinnon is not a proponent of Communism, although Die Hard PC Parrot, aka Unisom wants you to think she's a Commie

WHITE HET MALE SUPREMACIST
image/poster is from here
Historically in the White West, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are three political-economic solutions for arriving at an equal, fair, and moral society. Just one problem: none of them accomplish this, especially with regard to women. None of them, as theorised and practiced by white men--regardless of the white men's ideological identities and affiliations, factor women as anything other than beings that exist to serve men, or workers who exist to serve the State. While Capitalism typically exploits women's sexuality, encouraging sex to be paid work; Communism typically exploits women's labor, pretending her gender-class isn't subordinated to men through sex and work. Engels tried to theorise on the matter of women in society, and failed miserably. Catharine A. MacKinnon analyses what is missing from Marxist theory in her book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. 
Ward Churchill, a white man and batterer who is seen by some as an American Indian, discusses how Marxism fails to centralise the political and social well-being and survival of Indigenous people.
I have yet to encounter white men's theories and practices that set as a priority the liberation of women of all colors from male supremacy, economic exploitation, and men's sexual terrorism. I am not pro-Capitalism, pro-Socialism, or pro-Communism for these reasons and more. I don't believe money economies will free anyone or bring about sustainable living predicated on the value of spirit, not the worth of money.
What you will read below are the mental offerings of a WHM who goes by two names on Yahoo Answers: Unisom and Die Hard PC Parrot. He either makes up or finds a made up quote [not] by Catharine MacKinnon, and believes she is a Communist. Once he makes this inaccurate statement, using a quote she never wrote or said, others weigh in on the matter of whether feminism and communism are one and the same political phenomenon.
This post examines the logical phallusy presented by Unisom, and, with supporting quotes from him, make the case that what many anti-feminism, "anti-misandrist" men claim radical feminists think and feel is, rather, what many men who are both woman-hating and man-hating think and feel.
As you can observe below and from many other posts on A.R.P., there is an abundance of actively anti-feminist men online who project their own hatreds onto radical feminists, and pretend those women are "the enemy" because they carry such awful assumptions about men. That men carry these same assumptions, and have, for centuries, well before "radical feminism" existed as we know it in the last forty or so years, appears not to matter to these men.
Below, you'll notice that it is an anti-feminist and otherwise bigoted man who carries precisely those assumptions attributed to radical feminists, except here he reveals them as his own. Whether it's being pro-rape in some circumstances, or pro-murder of women by men, or pro-murder of men by women, he reveals what most men have learned to not so overtly display in many-gender social environments that pretend to value being humane. Many of his views are as vile as they are obnoxious. They reveal a person who seems to have little grounding in reality, little understanding of feminism, and a gross contempt for most for humanity generally. The only group of humans he seems to show repeated compassion for is heterosexual men who are under six feet tall. (I'm not kidding.)
When this particular anti-feminist does get around to quoting a radical feminist, he gets the quote very wrong, and shows that he hasn't even read the one page of text he's quoting from (and he cites the misquote!). We begin with a series of comments from this woman-hating and man-hating person called Unisom, also known as Die Hard PC Parrot, on Yahoo Answers.
Unisom asked a question "Gender difference: Most educated women live on the cloud while their male counterpart live on the ground?"
Answer this Question on Yahoo! Answers
At least, that's true for readers nowadays (keep in mind that most readers have good education, fools rarely read ): Excerpt: "...If it's even metaphorically true that men and women hail from different planets, it seems safe to assume that …
Unisom answered a question "A feminist walks into an MRA....?"
See this answer on Yahoo! Answers
Then she ends up hanging on tree after kicking this guy.

Unisom
Unisom answered a question "How can a 90lb woman kick a mans butt?"
See this answer on Yahoo! Answers
Ask Mr. Smith & Wesson 44 cal.
Posted at Aug 11 2:30am Posted to Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers
Unisom answered a question "Which man is more likely to win in a fight?"
See this answer on Yahoo! Answers Gays would generally win, since Aspergers is a debilitating disease, further more there are many kinds of Gays, some of them have as good Coordination as straight. Some even have very high Visual-Spacial Intelligence
Unisom answered a question "True or False:Straight men like sports?"
See this answer on Yahoo! Answers
I am straight and don't like/ play most sports. This question has no fast & hard answers, since so many straight men are too lazy to play any thing except sport in bed.

"Ladies, don't feed your spouse too much meat, lobsters or shrimps...after a good night sleep, in the morning, his gun would be at 3' o'clock position all day long. That's my experience." -- Die Hard PC Parrot, aka Unisom

Unisom
Unisom asked a question "Why is women's underwear necessary?"
Answer this Question on Yahoo! Answers
They have nothing to hold up, unlike men have a big gun & 2 grenades which could hurt while jumping or running, should the weapons not be hold tightly... As for the Menstruation time, they could insert a tampon or stick a pad using tape.
Posted at Aug 17 1:14am Posted to Yahoo! Canada Answers

"manginas as you have been one of the main culprits of Draconian Oppression of Men . Wait till the Masculist Revolution, baby! The reason you get laid easy because you are 6 feet tall or more, please admit it!" -- Die Hard PC Parrot, aka Unisom

"Some men (over 6 feet or rich) get much more than average man share of women. Or some women are serial polyandry by being hookers" -- Die Hard PC Parrot, aka Unisom

"[On PMS:] It's a temporary insanity for some women. It produce 2 problems: -If a women on PMS get hallucinated, she may claim Sexual Harassment, Rape, Violence against any Man unlucky enough to be near by, most likely her spouse." -- Die Hard PC Parrot, aka Unisom

Toto is once again engaging with silly if determined-to-make-all-men-look-bad men on Yahoo Answers. Thank you Toto for alerting me to the latest clear case of "a misinformation campaign" designed to discredit feminists who are, in fact and in practice, human rights activists trying to alleviate the suffering of women who are oppressed by men in grossly and abusively male supremacist societies.

The answer to "Who in the world is Die Hard PC Parrot?", with many examples of his racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, misogynist, and anti-feminist questions, answers, and colleagues on Yahoo Answers, appear below. But first, let's get right on with his recent question, which Toto answers in a way that makes the questioner look like a Die Hard Patriarchally Correct Parrot.

Open Question

Dear GS members, what do you think about this former N.O.W President Catherine MacKinnon's claim?

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
======================================…

Additional reinforcement quotes:

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” – Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537

And does this quote coincide with the a quote of FOUNDER of the former Soviet Union,( the most sinister Red Nation & headquarter of International Communists ):

“Destroy the family, you destroy the country*.” – V.I. Lenin

(*He meant a free-nation, then establish the Stateless International Communism)
  • 15 hours ago
  • - 3 days left to answer

Answers (4)


  • why does you always say one IN the same? it used to be AND. that makes more sense. think about it.
    • 15 hours ago


  • Well, obviously she is/was a Marxist Feminist, and can't be taken to be speaking for all Feminists, most of whom do not link Feminism with Socialism or Communism.

    Even so, she got it wrong: Socialism, according to Marxist theory, is just a stage on the road to Communism, which you don't get until the State "withers away." With Socialism, you still have a State.

    Marx and Engels worked together on the Communist Manifesto, and Engels was a Feminist. So it is not surprising that some modern Feminists are Marxists.

    Any social structure in preexisting society (such as marriage or the family) is likely to be seen by revolutionaries (such as Marxists or radical Feminists) as an obstacle that needs to be abolished, so that new structures can be set up.


  • Rio Madeira by Rio Madeira
    That's what she thinks. I can combine feminism and libertarianism.


  • Below I describe exactly how your entire argument is built on a house of cards, cards loaded with great inaccuracies, at the most basic level, including the spelling of her name.

    First of all, the top quote above is not on page 10 or any other page of Catharine MacKinnon's book Towards A Feminist Theory of the State. Instead, in that very book, MacKinnon harshly critiques Marxism, including how it devalues women's work in the home as not actual work. (Quotes provided below in this reply.) Have you read the book? Because that's so clear it puzzles me how you could miss that. Anyone can do a phrase and word search of the entire text at the URL provided below. You may also read all of page ten there. I'll offer quotes to support my argument, from page 10:

    "Feminist observations of women's situation in socialist countries, though not conclusive of the contribution of marxist theory to understanding women's situation, have supported the feminist theoretical critique. [If you read the whole chapter, or even the entire page, it is extremely clear she is saying that marxism is inadequate to remedy the oppression of women by men: marxism, in practice in Communist or in Socialist countries, fails to accomplish this. She goes on:] In the feminist view, socialist countries have solved many social problems--women's subordination not included. The criticism is not that socialism has not automatically liberated women in the process of transforming production (assuming that this transformation is occurring)."

    [Also on page 10:]
    "The basic feminist criticism is that these countries do not make a priority of working to change women's status relative to men that distinguishes them from nonsocialist societies in the way that their pursuit of other goals distinguishes them. Capitalist countries value women in terms of their "merit" by male [supremacist] standards; in socialist countries women seem invisible except in their capacity as "workers." This term seldom includes the work that remains distinctive service to men, regardless of the politics of those men: housework, prostitution and other sexual servicing, childbearing, childrearing. Sexual violence is typically barely mentioned."

    [Also from page 10:]
    "When women's labor or militancy suits the needs of emergency [of men's military emergencies, such as in the U.S. during and following WWII], she is suddenly man's equal, only to regress when the urgency recedes. Feminists do not argue that it means the same to women to be on the bottom in a feudal system, a capitalist regime, and a socialist regime. the commonality is that, despite real changes [and real differences in each] bottom is bottom." [The point is that in societies that are or have been feudal, capitalist, or communist, none have ever valued women as equals to men and have all treated women as inferior.]

    [Also from page 10:]
    "Where such attitudes and practices come to be criticized, as in Cuba or China, changes appear gradual and precarious, as they do in capitalist countries, even where the effort looks major." [End of quotation of C. A. MacKinnon's writing on page 10.]

    Second, Catharine MacKinnon was never a president of N.O.W. Where did you get your very easily verified information, and can you get back to the person or website to tell them it's grossly inaccurate? Here is a list of all the presidents of NOW from start to present, from NOW's own website. (URL provided below)

    Betty Friedan, Aileen Hernandez, Wilma Scott Heide, Karen DeCrow, Eleanor Smeal, Judy Goldsmith, Molly Yard, Patricia Ireland, Kim Gandy, and currently Terry O'Neill.

    Third, taking quotes out of context, and including misquotes--making up things that someone never wrote or said--is a poor way to build a case that what you're discussing has any validity, merit, or is worth engaging with in any serious manner. Arguments prepared this way make someone appear to be very ignorant rather than knowledgeable on the subject at hand.

    Fourth, Lenin ruled a very large country. Catharine MacKinnon rules no country, state, or organisation--including NOW. She commands no military or police forces, governs no land, and has no authority to do anything that State commanders can do. To compare a past totalitarian Communist leader of Russia to a contemporary U.S. feminist writer, lecturer, Constitutional law professor and attorney, and human rights activist, is to not understand the meaning of the term "fair comparison."

    Source(s):

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Shn5xHywtHIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mackinnon,+toward+a+feminist+theory+of+the+state&hl=en&ei=GuxvTKC1AsKC8gb6yNTxDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

    http://www.now.org/history/past_presidents.html

Here is some information about the Parrot of Patriarchal Correctness, only using information he himself provides on Yahoo Answers. Absolutely no "digging around in the dirt" was required to unearth what was found. Just click on his name on Yahoo Answers: it's all there.

Unisom's photo

Unisom

Get updates
  • 45 - Male - Montreal, Quebec

    2 months ago
And here are many more of his questions and answers to life. Some of what follows has been copied and pasted above, to highlight some of his preposterous views.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

(e)gods, ego(d)s, e-gods, egads! A tale about how to dye cloth

image is from here

There once was a woman who lived in a small but traveled village. Most of the travelers were missionaries. They brought the word of their god to the disbelievers. They never spoke directly to her, at her, for they saw that she was a lost cause. What person of great spirit would spend her days dying cloth blue, in such a fashion as to only produce a few finished items across a long season? They knew of her output because villagers would tell them about her if asked, but only with praise for her work. Nevertheless, the god-fearing missionaries scoffed at her methods and thought her either evil or insane. After all, she lived and worked alone. She never married any man nor bore any children. Aside from feeding her animals and tending to her vegetables, she worked only to dye cloth blue. She spoke up when she had to but wasn't known for being a conversationalist. The missionaries fed off village gossip as they made their way out of one and into another, and so took the villagers' regard for her and her general silence as signs of condescension or impudence.

When she collected the cloth initially it was more or less white. The blue dye was the most beautiful rich blue you can imagine or have ever seen. Her process for transforming the cloth, however, was ridiculed by many passers-by. They mocked her because they saw a bit of her process, and they thought it, and her, utterly crazy, ludicrous. They felt she was engaging in activity, every day, that was preposterous and an absurd waste of time, if she wanted "success". It's not that her cloth wasn't, when finished, blue. It's that the process took so long they felt she'd never earn enough to make a living. So although they mocked her, on some level they wished her to be well.

The villagers being busy with their own chores and tasks, never have the time to watch her for more than a few minutes, and they knew from experience that her blue cloth was the best in the village--they had no reason to deride her for any reason. Though they didn't understand her process, they respected it for what it produced. And throughout the village many of them saved their earnings to purchase blue cloth from her. Even some of the travelers had a sense about her product. And some of them, too, bought her cloth, even while they may have muttered something unkind under their breath about her being crazy.

Her process was as follows:

She prepared a pot of very hot water by adding a certain number of handfuls of blue dye which she kept in a bin quite nearby. With a clean branch she stirred until the water was evenly blue--deep, rich, dark blue. To look into the pot, even at noon, was like looking into the depths of night with no moon. She immersed the white cloth fully and let it soak a while, simmering. She then slowly lifted it out with the stick, let it drip over the pot and cool down, and then took it into her hands and wound it tight, rinsing out all excess liquid directly over the pot so all the extra dye-water fell back into the pot for the next immersion of cloth. She wasted nothing.

Once wrung out she shook open the cloth and placed it nearby on a very large round stone, expansive and curved, so that the cloth directly faced the sun as it journeyed across the hot sky.

On the already warm stone, the cloth dried quickly. Was it time to re-soak the cloth? She could get in several dunkings in an hour or two, depending on the intensity of the sun. But for her, no. She left the cloth on that stone for most of the afternoon. Finally she'd take it up and bring it inside at the end of the workday. Any morning she began to work she repeated that process. Back onto the large sunned stone the same soaked, simmered, cooled, and wrung out cloth would go. What the missionaries who passed through her village whispered to one another as they saw the dye in the pot and the cloth on the stone is this, "Doesn't she know that the sun BLEACHES any color at all OUT of the cloth?!?"

She heard them often--some of them wanted her to hear them. Some travelers were so rude as to say it loudly, as if intending to make her feel like a fool. She had little interest in considering the validity of their insults. There was nothing any missionary said that she hadn't heard many times before.

Day after day, travelers passed and whispered or made a point not to whisper, calling her names, calling her dying process crazy.

But back to the cloth. Each day, apparently, the cloth went from wet and blue-ish, to dry and bleached back to white. From day to day there was no noticeable change. She also saw no change, but this didn't stop her for she knew how things worked. For days, weeks, the same cloth went into the pot, was wrung out, and was placed flat on the warm stone to dry, and, it seemed, to be sun-bleached.

From the beginning of one lunar cycle to another, something did change, however. Imperceptibly, the cloth began to hold more of its dye. Incrementally. Over a long period, it shifted from white, to a very pale light blue, to a clearer blue, through the middle hues, and finally ended up a deep rich blue, even at the end of that last days time in the blazing sun. And when that day's work was done, the cloth was no longer white-turning blue. It was, through and through, a blue cloth. You could dig into any fiber and no whiteness would be found. And no amount of sun could bring it back. It was different now than it once was. It has become something new. Blue.

This is a story about radical personal-political-spiritual transformation through practice. The individual practice, let's say if daily, shows no demonstrable change. But over time transformation happens, as long as the actions are repeated in accordance with how one is taught. There isn't one way. I have told you of one way that worked for her. But there are other ways to make something change even in a context where ones ways are mocked and ridiculed.
 
I am contemplating the relationship between ego and the gods of human imagination. And the relationship between men's egos and men's gods. And what, if any, relationship they have to G-ddess, aka She Who Is All.

I am realising from recent conversation with a friend, how the male god sneaks in when one is least inviting him in as a male-specific god. I have watched for a long while how the Male God/Ego is meant to be worshiped, with all other matters placed subordinate to that prime commandment.

A beloved white woman, a lesbian feminist friend I once knew who has since passed on, believed in the power of language-in-life. She grew up with a white male god image and with white male god-language, and chose later to change that to a female G-d/dess in her own imagination but not from her ego. She conjured this G-ddess, who had many faces and many colors from stories of Her from the past. And, also, she grew to make contact with this G-ddess who was revealed to my friend. This felt artificial initially, in the ways, I think, that learning a new language can feel utterly strange and impossible to feel at home in--as if it will never be and can never be a mother tongue. But over time, sure enough, She was realised/experienced by my friend as surely as the old male god once was.

My friend gained strength in this G-ddess, a kind of strength the male god, the only-white god, had not ever provided. The old god took from her and also repeatedly asked a lot of her. He asked her to be submissive to Him, always. To do otherwise, so it was said by the men who worshiped Him, was a sin against Him. She did not believe in anyone being submissive. Nor in a kind of dominance that was practiced in society by white people and by men, throughout the time in which she lived. And she lived through the Civil Rights Movement and the Women's Movement in the U.S., so she saw hate in the faces of many whites and many men who felt threatened by Black men, Black women, and by white women too who wanted justice, not subordination. She noticed how such people, herself included, were called "uppity", as if to strive to reach a level of human stature and standing in a white male supremacist society--a level that white men took for granted and felt fully entitled to, was way to ask for too much to ask for, as well as unnatural and against the white man's god's will.

Her G-ddess did not ask for her to practice either submission or dominance, only to be true to herself by listening deeply to herself, beyond the seemingly ceaseless echos of men's voices. In the depths of her own being was the G-ddess's being and becoming. In the depths of everyone's being, the G-ddess assured her, was the power of the G-ddess of Joy, Love, Wisdom, Peace, and Joy. Also of Rage, Action, Perseverance, and Justice.

The white and male supremacist dualisms taught to her--that to feel rage against injustice is somehow not peace-seeking and joy-bringing, or is and must be some kind of condescension or hatred for whites or for men, was revealed to her as untrue. Most of that only-white male god's knowledge wasn't from any G-d/dess at all. These truths were written in hand by men. Only men, some of whom later became white and pretended their new god always was white. They spoke their truths and put them down as G-d's truth, believing that what their egos conceived and apprehended must be As It Is and As It Should Be. Their egos got in the way of apprehending and appreciating the wisdom of G-d/dess.

Beware the voice of any god that comes in the words written only by men in ancient texts or on Internet web pages, especially ones that proclaim with certainty that lightness is holy and darkness is evil. And remember that in practice, with perseverance, white cloth can be made blue, and can remain blue no matter how long it bakes in the sun.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)