#surplus of money they don’t know what to do with and has a huge racism problem

[asexualjedi]

Remembering how last time u people didn’t like someone was running for the board of ao3 who was vaguely critical of the site in the mildest way possible and was like maybe we can do things differently mayhaps and everyone decided to have a campaign declaring they were a Chinese spy. You are not serious people.

[literature-islit]

Ursula K. Le Guin - The Lathe of Heaven (1971)

I’ve been reading a lot about the future lately and unfortunately things don’t exactly look fantastic for us homo sapiens as a species. 

TLDR summary: once companies are able to replace human workers with machine robots and algorithms, it’s over for us as human workers because why wouldn't they want to make the cash money savings, and even with the universal basic income they only want to introduce so we don’t hunt down the 0.001% of business owners that will remain, social mobility will be eviscerated and we will live in a feudal society. Except at least in a feudal society the monarchs needed the labour of the plebs to get resources. We’ll basically be surplus to the requirements of the people on the top of the ladder. Economies will crash, because a healthy economy needs the workers to have enough purchasing power to support other industries. There’s a huge argument in this book FOR the eradication of crony capitalism and the reversal of all cuts to government services, arts bodies, etc because the more secure our jobs and the better wages the average person is able to earn, the more wealth inside the community generally BUT NOBODY WANTS TO TELL YOU ABOUT THAT WEARING THEIR CHINOS AND RM WILLIAMS BOOTS DEBATING WITH YOU ABOUT THE ECONOMY ONLINE FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE SPECTRUM. Sorry for getting heated. 

And this book 

In one word: terrifying. Like the atomic bomb dance, Bostrom sees a super intelligence as an inevitability, and argues we need to get there before threatening foreign powers get there first. He thinks we will inevitably (without presenting evidence as to why) be ruled by a superintelligence under a one world government, but basically acknowledges that a truly super superintelligence would be much smarter than its controllers, would know how to spread its tentacles through everything and basically achieve world domination over us poor human beings, the children playing with blocks who accidentally press the wrong buttons and eviscerate ourselves. 

Bro, I just want to be Amish. 

Like, seriously, sometimes i think about the future and find comfort in the idea of becoming Amish, or joining a Monastery, or moving to Pete Evan’s commune in the NSW hinterlands. 

I am more serious than you’ll ever know. 

Because right now our species is fxxxing around with some stuff that we have the technical knowledge to understand, without countering that arrogance with an understanding of the soul.

And Urusla K Le Guin knows that, and has been knowing that for a long time. And that’s why this book is a cautionary tale that I think is more applicable now, than ever before. 

So, The Lathe of Heaven is about this guy who has dreams that change the world. He’ll go to sleep, the world will be one way, he’ll have a dream and wake up to find that the events of his dream have changed reality completely. 

Understandably, this makes him terrified of sleep. 

He overdoses on a drug that stops you from dreaming and has to go to a therapist, who convinces him that he thinks he is insane. BUT - the therapist actually believes him - and sees a way to harness this power for his own benefit. Soon, the therapist is manipulating his dreams for his own benefit. The therapist first improves his own material position, then sets himself about using the dreams to bring about desirable outcomes for humanity like world peace. Only, things always have sneaky little inadvertent outcomes, don’t they? 

Problem --> solution --> solution creates bigger problem - the summary of many of humanity’s efforts to “fix” the world so far

He wants to eliminate racism, so everyone’s skin becomes grey and the beautiful diversity of different cultures on the planets is lost.

An attempt to solve “overpopulation” reduces the population via devastating plague (lil too close for comfort in our current times)

And, desiring world peace, he inadvertently creates an alien invasion on the moon, which unites the people of earth against this existential threat. 

(side note - the aliens are truly my favourite characters in the book. LOVE them.)

Says George Orr the protagonist, witnessing the problem after problem caused by his therapist’s ignorant, egotistical efforts to play God and fix things that are not his to solve: 

“To be God you have to know what you’re doing. And to do any good at all, just believing you’re right and your motives are good isn’t enough. You have to … be in touch. “

IMO the true mysteries of the world are the sacred knowledge of the people who knew how to live in harmony with the earth’s natural processes. 

And i really hope our scientists and tech barons realise that before we’re all left behind. 

[seanhowe]

Against Woodstock

“Rock Imperialists” by Mark Kramer, Liberation News Service, 1969 NEW YORK (LNS) The list of stars who will show up at the Woodstock Rock Festival this August is mighty impressive—as fine as any ever. There's everyone: Joan Baez, the Who, Joe Cocker, Janis Joplin, the Jefferson Airplane, Ravi Shankar, Blood Sweat and Tears, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Richie Havens, Canned Heat, Arlo Guthrie,, Tim Hardin, Johnny Winter, the Band, Iron Butterfly, The Grateful Dead and the Incredible String Band, for example. The arrangements to help you spend three days in the wilds sound as impressive as the list of stars—free campgrounds, ample water and outhouses; free rice kitchen for the poor and hungry; catering by Nathan's of Coney Island craft booths which might just be bivouac head shoppes, and which might be craft booths. So the rock imperialists deliver the goods. When you want a banana, United Fruit sells a good banana. And when you want a rock festival, Woodstock Music and Art Fair, Inc., sells a good rock festival—at $7 a day. The Guatemalans who grew the bananas get to eat an occasional bruised model. And the street people, the denizens of the lower east side, of the Haight, let them eat free rice and maybe they'll hear the sounds wafting out past the gates. But they made the culture which the rich fops imitate. Walk down St. Marks Place in the East Village and dig the crowd on either side of the velvet rope which separates those with the bread ($10 a couple) to get into the Electric Circus from those who beg spare change to buy a knish. On the rich side, the same outfits as on the poor side, except ironed and cut from finer cloth—bell bottoms, groovy vests, mucho hair, svelte girls in granny glasses. On the poor side, it's hip...on the rich side, it's a shuck, it's an imitation of Hip. It's fancy boutique clothes cut to look like the old surplus clothes which the street people once wore out of poverty, thereby creating a style. For some, the dress constitutes a case of 'going native' for a night on the Bowery. For others it's simply high fashion. The impulse for kids to dress 'well' is plugged in nasty trend-setting magazines like "Seventeen" and supported by the huge cloth and garment companies, the cosmetics companies and the hygiene-freak companies. The sales job for fashion is easier than others—for the styles come complete with a built-in image. Marlboro has to spend millions to rope together its cancer-sticks and he-manhood. But the Fashion-Makers have it easy this year, because the clothes styles which they plug were once part of a genuine revolutionary and romantic lifestyle. So America's teenagers are exploited by big companies that hold 'lifestyle' out as bait. "BUY THIS AND YOU WILL BE..." You will be what? Hip? You'll own another piece of snappy clothing, you'll be able to crowd the poor girl down the block still further, you'll earn your ticket to daydream about running toward him through tall fields of hay, arms stretched toward the sun—the kind of daydream they push in ads for cunt deodorant. And the kind of daydream they push on album covers. “But (you say) album covers are great. I trip, and look at album covers, and…etc." But it ain't that way. Rock may have come from the Street people, along with styles that grew out of buying surplus clothing, and daydreams that grew out of mystic studies and sunshine state habits. And the communication between the performing artists and you may still bear the same free-you-up message. But in between you and the performer, there's billions of dollars that you're paying and (for the most part) he's not getting. Who is getting it? The huge companies that own the record empires. Here's the puzzle: the same companies that own the recording contracts and record studies which make 'liberated' music, also own government contracts and subsidiary companies which make electronic bombing equipment, spying equipment, death equipment which is used in Vietnam and in our other colonies. The companies don't care how they make money, as long as they make the money. If they can make it from anti-war youth culture by coming on hip, they'll do it. And if they can make it from killing Vietnamese and killing off thousands of years of Vietnamese culture with expensive weapons systems for the government, they'll do that too. For example, CBS owns Columbia records, Masterworks, Blue Horizon, Odyssey, Harmony, Date, Okeh and several other record companies. They have invested heavily in defense contracts as well, working especially in the areas of laser beams, radar, spy photography, underwater detection—the sorts of technological work which keeps up the arms race and makes fat profits. It's the same story with most of the other major record companies. Like true imperialists, they'll go wherever the market is, talk whatever language (be it Vietnamese or hip-ese) needs talking, sell whatever people will pay for, as long as they make a profit. Does this mean you shouldn't buy records? No, of course not. If you wanted to live in this country without supporting the death machine, you couldn't eat or turn on an electric light. What it means is that you should understand a few facts of life. When you sit down with a sandwich (made of food processed by big business) and when you take a bite of the sandwich and start listening to music of YOUR culture, peddled for the profit of THEIR culture, then dig it! That's the corner they've got you backed into. Supporting the very things you hate the most in order to get the few things you want. There's a revolutionary movement growing in this country to fight just that form of oppression. What has this got to do with Woodstock? You might go there and have a fine time, but just remember that someone is making a million on your fun, and it isn't the performers, many of whom come for little or nothing. We interviewed the promoters setting up the Woodstock Festival, at a press conference arranged by the mid-town publicity company they hired. The conference itself was a slick operation. It passed itself off as a consultation between "leaders of the rock community" and the underground press on how to have peaceful good times for everyone. They didn't need to consult with anyone. Way back in April they had hired a federal law enforcement official, Wes Pomeroy, whom they described to me as "a very progressive kind of cat." A very progressive kind of cat who had worked with Johnson on the Safe Streets' Act, and with Republican bigwigs in planning security for their '64 convention at the Cow Palace. That's who the investors ("leaders of the rock community”) consulted with when they wanted security for their investment, not the underground press people. Even though the press conference handout reads, "We have called a special meeting of the underground press and rock community leaders to discuss ways of developing safe and harmonious pop music festivals.” Mike Lang and Artie Kornfield and two other partners put up half-a-million bucks. They're expecting big returns from ticket sales, a cut of concession sales, and also from selling TV and movie rights. Artie used to head Columbia Records. He told me, “I’d dig my daughter to be able to eat too." What about the street people? Mike says "We're not turning our backs on these people—we've got to feed them.” And let them in? “Don't you feel you're exploiting hip culture for your own gain?” Artie said, "Much of us have the same goal, We want to be able to cut out—not take shit—and go live in the country," Except that for most, it is a dream, not a goal, as long as Artie collects from every freak who wants to hear his music. And except that now that so many people want to cut out, they might find it easier to get together and put a stop to the conditions they want to escape. What about the riot that happened at the LA rock festival, Artie? "We are them—when they attack us, they are attacking themselves. If you talk about an army, it's got a lot of different wings. We're just another wing.” Maybe Artie and Mike are fooling themselves and maybe not. But they have extracted from the movement those things which can make them some money—talent, excitement, revolutionary energy, identity with hip looks and talk. But they have missed the heart of the movement. The revolutionary energy of rock and of the movement is a response to oppression—it grew out of the blues, out of the poor white country music, out of the emancipated poverty of the street people and their drug scene, out of the anger about national leaders representing corporate interests, while killing people, anger about how students get lied to and treated in public schools. The movement is made by and sung by people who oppose exploitation, whether by war elsewhere, or by high prices, racism and low wages at home. The movement is not represented in any way by rich investors getting richer by the profits of rock festivals—even if the investors do look hip and talk hip and know hip people. By the way, if you do go to the. Woodstock festival (actually, the grounds are located in Wallkill, N.Y.), Wes Pomeroy has a staff of 400 security people working for him, in and out of costume. When he was asked about kids smoking dope there, he said, "We'll do nothing to protect them. There will be narcs there, same as everywhere—they're going to have to pay $7, too." photograph by Henry Diltz

[mtr-amg]

To Paul Fletcher MP

What I would like to say to my local member who can't even take two seconds to determine if a person is in his electorate or not and then replies with a form letter telling me to go to his webpage and look up his FAQ section.

I knew you would send that pat 'I get a lot of emails' autoreply.

This email is to register my protest against the religious discrimination bill 2019.

I know my vote doesn't matter a damn to a liberal member in a seat so blue ribbon it has never been anything but liberal since the day it was formed, but I need to tell you how angry I am with this government.

You will be remembered for a lot of things: your mismanagement of the economy, your continued and expensive war against refugees that is both fiscally and morally bankrupt. Australia will be charged with war crimes for those concentration camps punishing people who did nothing more than ask for our help. it is not a crime to be a refugee. it IS a crime to imprison and mistreat refugees. To pay other countries and private companies to do it? that's some next level stuff.

Your war on unions.

Your cuts to the public service. How exactly do you think a government can run efficiently without staff? And don't tell me it is cheaper to hire private companies to do it for you; it isn't. It hasn't been so far. Do not also argue that staff can be replaced with automated systems. Look how well robodebt is doing on that score. Another 'service' that is going to leave the government paying out huge amounts of compensation to people wrongly charged and hounded for small amounts of money while large corporations pay zero tax dollars. Lord knows how many people have been killed by the robodebt fiasco.

Your corrupt, incompetent ministers like Michaela Cash, Angus Taylor and Barnaby Joyce.

The war on welfare is also morally bankrupt. Welfare is something we pay to get people back on their feet. It's a good and just system. They pay it back in their taxes. It's a long haul game but you can't see that while you try to run a government like a corporation; obsessed with a surplus while people on Newstart starve. You take funds from the NDIS to prop up your spending.

Your war on climate change. Wow, I bet you're all proud of removing the carbon tax, now eh? The photos of our leaders tossing around a lump of coal in parliament have made a mockery of our leadership. Of course it was laminated; you didn't actually get your hands dirty, did you?

Your inability to pivot and admit that climate change is both real and a worldwide disaster. Margaret Thatcher spoke on it in the 80's; it isn't new. I have a Geology degree and it was clear back then that this was coming. I remember watching Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth in 2006.

Your smirking fool of a choice for prime Minister and his worrisome prosperity bible worship. Charity is a tenet of real Christianity.  God does not punish people because they are poor. His refusal to meet with fire chiefs who held genuine fears for our preparedness for the worst fire season Australia would face, as if by NOT meeting them, he could make it not happen. His statement that volunteer fire fighters 'wanted to be there'. Volunteers who are using their own leave to battle blazes that are going to burn all summer. We cannot ask them to do this. My family has friends who are out there. Getting one hours sleep before they are called out again. They are volunteers, not professionals. They have jobs, families and homes of their own to save.

The pathetic announcement of eleven million in aid to the RFS that was already promised in last year's fire budget is a poor effort to 'fix' a bad press moment. People are dying and you give less than one tenth of the cost of the PM's new plane and it isn't even new funds.

Do you know what was the most searched item on Google for Australia in 2019? The RFS fires near me page.

You don’t care that we have an air quality level that puts Australia at worse than New Delhi, and you are not thinking about the ongoing health issues caused by this for decades to come. Instead of dealing with it, you passed laws limiting the right of people to protest against climate change. It was your government’s John Howard gun law moment, and you missed it.

Australia won the worst fossil award at the UN environment council. You sent Angus Taylor as our representative. You can't use creative accounting for carbon credits and the fact that you even tried makes us look like buffoons. 

Don't you get it? Our world is at stake. Sir David Attenborough and various other experts are telling us we are close to the tipping point where it cannot be fixed. 

Do not argue that Australia does its bit. These fires alone, have pumped a huge amount of co2 into our atmosphere without even considering our industry. We sell coal. Your government continues to support a dying industry. Why don’t you care about the insurance industry who has to pay out all the damage claims for increasingly prevalent 100 year events?

Water is our most precious resource, not coal. Towns have run out of drinking water and summer has barely started. There is no water to fight the fires. You have allowed water to be sold to corporations. Australia is the most arid continent on earth and you have made it worse.

But what you should be really proud of is your stewardship of a democracy that has already been downgraded from free to limited by the CIVICUS Monitor. Congratulations. We are level with Botswana and Ghana. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/australia-s-democracy-has-been-downgraded-from-open-to-narrowed

With the introduction of this religious discrimination bill, Australia will slide into some dark ages medieval stuff. It is a thinly veiled disguise for racism and prejudice. Actually, it isn't even disguised. Under this law my children can be told they will go to hell as I am a divorced single parent. They can be told that autism is some kind of punishment, that their free sexual choices will allow a doctor or pharmacist to refuse to supply life saving drugs to them.

This is utterly appalling. I am catholic. My children went to a catholic high school. This is a bill for Christians of the ilk of the PM. I find it highly unlikely that a practising Muslim could deny service in the ways the Bill will allow. No one complains about a nun wearing a head covering, but they do about a Muslim woman? That's racism. Let's not deal with how badly drafted it is. Christian Porter is the worst Attorney General we have ever had. And yes, I have a law degree, two in fact.

Do NOT pass this Bill.

My vote doesn't matter to you but I have a right to register my protest. At least I do until you take that, too away from me. My angry liberal voter friends will register their’s at the next election. I hope it’s enough for you to lose your seat. Wouldn't that be a legacy you could be proud of?

[legit-writing-tips]

Legit’s List of Historical Myths

Writing something historical, or a fantasy based on historical occurrences? Awesome. Except when you’re writing about history, it’s really important to know history. That’s especially true with myths that are potentially harmful (like pretending there were no black people in Elizabethan England or that trans people didn’t exist until this millennium). Here are some myths you may or may not have known about, and the truth behind those myths. 

1. Witches Were Burned at the Stake - Eh. Sort of. Burning was generally a European thing. In America we mostly hanged witches, or in some cases crushed them to death with stones. Also, though women were executed for witchcraft at a higher rate than men, men could also be accused and killed. 

2. Sailors (like Columbus) Proved the Earth Round - Sorry, flat earthers. People have known the world was a globe since about 400 BC. So in stories set after that time, you’re not going to have a character mistakenly believe the earth is flat. Not unless they are very uneducated or they like conspiracy theories. 

3. Gladiators All Fought to the Death - Not really. Gladiators were sportsmen - and women - who were worth a lot of money. They trained, they fought, and they were taken care of. They weren’t all slaves either. Many volunteered to fight. I’d do research if I were writing gladiator-inspired fiction. 

4. Victorians Were Prudes - They really weren’t any more prudish than people are at any given point in history. If sex was discouraged it was probably because it was risky to sleep around - diseases like syphilis weren’t curable. Also, they didn’t cover up table legs because they were risque. And there were tons of sex workers. And Queen Victoria herself liked hot boys when she was young and wrote about how much sex she had with her hubby. (She got a bit more prudish with age.) 

5. Native Americans All Lived in Tipis - Come on now. First of all, which Native Americans are you referring to? There are tons of tribes and they all have their own practices, culture, and beliefs. Natives on the plains did use tipis and were at times nomadic. Other Natives built huge cities. Research Native culture and don’t perpetuate stereotypes folks. 

6. Any Slave/Indentured Servant Myth - There are a ton of these. Indentured servants were all white? Nope (though it was quite dangerous to be an indentured POC). Indentured servants were treated badly? Well, most had contracts, some that stated indentured servants required medical care, food, etc. Historically, most slaves were prisoners of war or debtors. Heck, going back in history you’ll even find that the pyramids weren’t built by slaves, as most think, but by paid laborers. All this to say - research it before you write it. 

7. Slavery Myths #2 - Because apparently I have a lot to say on the subject... Historically, it was more common to make your own people slaves rather than go out and capture an enemy force. Also, only “barbarians” are slaves... Nope. I mean, yeah, but not in the sense a lot of people think. Slavery generally doesn’t develop until you have a solid civilization that can support it, with a food surplus to feed slaves, etc. So if you write a story and the good (usually) white people don’t have slaves but the less organized, less structured natives do, you’re doing it wrong. (I’ve seen a ton of this shit in high fantasy.)

 8. Cleopatra Was Egyptian - Nah. She was Greek, and spoke a Greek dialect as her main language (though she DID speak native Egyptian). She basically belonged to the “ruling class” of Egypt at the time. So...that means she was white right? Nah. That is to say, we don’t know for sure. Leading to point 9... 

9. Race Has Been a Big Divide Throughout History - It’s only recently we started caring about race, guys. Back in classical times, skin color wasn’t all that important. What mattered was your country of origin, religion, stuff like that. A lot of our modern ideas about “race” came from European conquerors opposing enemies of different religions (who happened to be dark) and, obviously, American Slavery. Racism is a fairly modern phenomenon if you do your homework.

10. Back in the Day, People Married Super Young - No. They did not. While betrothals sometimes took place where young children were promised to each other, usually they didn’t actually marry until they were much older. In fact, the common age of marriage in Medieval Europe was generally around 20 for women and 30 for men. Therefore, no excuses for having a 12 year old marry an older man. That’s just gross.

Anyway, here are 10 history myths for you to learn from, whether you’re writing historical fiction, fantasy, or just want to learn a bit more about our past! I will likely be doing a few more of these since I uncovered a lot of things I want to talk about while researching! 

[red-stocking]

What in your opinion are the upsides and downsides to both radical feminist theory and Marxist feminist theory? :)

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION THANK YOU (as always i apologize for the hella long response)

First, i want to start off by saying that I would really define marxist feminism as kind of a sub-category of radical feminism. There is just such a tremendous overlap in theory, and quite a few radical feminists were also socialists, and vice versa. The real difference is kind of the plan-of-action, the ‘how to actually concretely fight the patriarchy’ part, and then kind of the in-practice cultures of marxist feminism and radical feminism.

I also wanna say that, in a perfect world, marxist feminist is a redundant phrase. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Zetkin all agreed that women’s rights must be part of a socialist program, without it you do not have socialism. That Marxism makes feminism unnecessary, because socialism is already fighting for equal rights for all, power to the people, no worker’s voice is stronger than another’s. There are many women marxists who do believe it is redundant and so they don’t apply the feminist label to themselves, Not because they are at all anti-feminist, and not out of condemnation to feminists of any kind, but because they see their ideas both as encompassing of the women’s struggle and not inclusive at all to the bourgeois feminist movement. If that makes sense. Anyway, I call myself a Marxist feminist because I don’t wish to distance myself from feminism, especially on this site, because I want to engage feminists and i want other feminists to see that we have ideas in common immediately, without me having to explain several marxist pillars. Both marxist and radical feminism look at the roots of womens oppression, they both analyze the social contexts in which patriarchy exists, and both recognize that femininity and masculinity are not innate, biological facts but culturally relative tools of oppression. 

So- the major pillars (or what I think they are) of radical feminism are included in marxism/marxist feminism. They differ then, in how we must dismantle the patriarchy. It has never been clear to me what the plan is in radical feminism. As far as I have been able to tell, its just analysis and like, growing consciousness or awareness at the socialization we as women experience. Or I have also seen separatism as a way to escape patriarchy. But otherwise, just suggestions of donating time and money to women’s shelters and charities, but none of these things actually change the system, none will deliver that huge blow that will take patriarchy down for good. If there is a radical feminist that knows differently, please do comment! I am not the most well-read person on the subject, so I could be wrong and just haven’t learned what that plan is yet. But yeah, as far as I know, that’s the plan.

The ultimate goal of marxism is to establish socialism. The idea behind marxism is that society changes when the people’s relationship to the means of production changed, and this is confirmed by what we know of archaeological history. When private property was first developed as a concept (and there was enough surplus from what people were producing to claim ownership on things) that was when women’s oppression began. Prior to that, there was what we call primitive communism, where resources were shared because there was not enough to go around anyway- communism for survival. There were divisions of labor between the sexes in most primitive communist societies (the whole hunter-gatherer idea) but there is a lot of evidence that these divisions were hardly strict, and not as pervasive as once thought. Then of course, under feudalism slavery was developed, and then later, with the transition to capitalism, racism really took hold. (there is a LOT of debate about when racism really ‘began’- but it did more or less coincide with the transition from feudalism to capitalism i believe.)

Sorry, that background was necessary. Basically, social relations in society change when the economics of society change.  Marxists then apply that idea to the future of humankind as well. They say, well if we want to dismantle these systems of oppression -sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, etc) we have to change the relationship of the people to the means of production. We have to dismantle capitalism, and establish socialism. Giving women economic equality is the first step to dismantling patriarchy, and that cannot be done under capitalism. 

Now of course, no marxist/marxist feminist believes that all we need to do is have a socialist revolution and then Boom, we r done. After all, we still have the oppression of women, something that could have been dismantled with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but wasn’t. There needs to be active intervention to ensure women’s equality under socialism after the revolution. After the Russian Revolution (which celebrates its 100th anniversary this year, and started with a women’s strike 100 years ago this wednesday!) there were programs established that gave access to free childcare, healthcare, contraception was legalized, it was easier for women to get divorced, women were given the right to vote and equal status to men was given immediately, and at one point the sciences had an equal representation of women- even almost tipping to give women a majority. This was the nation engaged in the space race with the US, remember. (I dont want to sound like I am in anyway romanticizing the USSR and I absolutely am NOT a Stalinist, but they got a couple things right in the early days and those are worth pointing out).So that is what I consider the ‘upside’ to marxist feminism, or the ‘downside’ to radical feminism. WOW OK ALMOST THERE STAY WITH ME YALL.

The other way in which radical feminism and marxist feminism differ is the communities. Marxism is dominated by men. So fucking dominated by men. i have found a leftist group that is very welcoming, aware of women’s oppression, and I feel very comfortable speaking up in the group- but I am the ‘token’ female, the only one. And this is not just my group, but the national and international organizations my group belongs to. There’s an LGBT Rights pamphlet but they really only talk about the G and the T. And I do know it isn’t out of maliciousness, I have met the guy who wrote that pamphlet. Its just. Out of sight out of mind. The representation of women is just appallingly low. They are aware of it and really do want to change it, they are working on making women’s issues more prominent in discussions, making their spaces more welcoming to women, etc. But at the moment, my sex sometimes can feel like a burden, or extra responsibility. Like I have to represent an entire half of the world by myself. There isnt really a ‘marxist feminist’ community, just marxists.

In radical feminist circles, obviously it is men who are the minority if they are at all present. Its a very different community than marxism. Obviously it’s not perfect, there are issues that the radfem community needs to work out, but I appreciate things like how open i can be about my menstrual cycle, I can vent about men a little more viciously than i would with my male comrades- though they are pretty accepting of anti-men rants, I gotta say. It’s just nice to talk to women and the culture in radical feminism is just- being a woman and an asshole is more acceptable lol. I don’t have to be on my tiptoes with what words I use. I am not even sure how to explain it tbh. So that’s the upside of radical feminism/ the downside of marxism. I talked about a ton of different stuff and touched on a lot more things, so if you or anyone wants to ask me any follow up q’s i welcome asks. anon is always on. sorry for the essay.