WithoutFurtherBelay

Wtf I liked a lot of Foucalt’s takes, I guess it’s time to never buy a copy of Crime and Punishment

It’s funny because based on how people are defining “femininity” or “masculinity” both here and in some weirdo “traditionalist” circles, some famous cis woman pop singers wouldn’t be feminine because they’re focused on material acquisition, the admiration of their peers, and social dominance. This is silly. These concepts have probably become far more associated with vague physical appearance than any actual behaviors or personality traits, and are not immutable in any way.

this

Again, I disagree with this, because “socialist masculinity” isn’t backwards in any sense separated from it’s material context of gender and oppression. Muscles and oily, large calves and large beards are not counterrevolutionary, and neither are those who get off to them or whatever, but our insistence on associating them with certain personality traits and behaviors is (and is arguably part of the engine of patriarchy as a whole). I believe allowing this patriarchal engine to simply claim these superficial aesthetics, even implicitly by only allowing their existence as a “transitory period”, would be a step in the wrong direction. Especially when this superficial signifiers would not be counterrevolutionary in any sense when removed from their content in a post-communist world.

Instead, we should try to throw a wrench into this engine, by explicitly disconnecting the aesthetic from its original context. Have big, sweaty, muscled people who wear exclusively aprons and jockstraps work in flower shops as much as possible, and treat people with kindness and care. Have thin, long-haired, body-hair-less wearing bowties in their hair work in car shops and gun ranges and treat people distantly and competitively. Do whatever we can to make people realize these signifiers have no direct material connection to reality, and are only enforced by a complex web of social systems that try to force people into specific genders and specific, tiny roles.

Attempting to interrupt and remove these aesthetics from existence is somewhat revolutionary, sure, but it’s ultimately kind of idealistic in a different way. People already associate positive experiences and joy with the presentation of aesthetics, they are happy looking at them and being around them, and this is likely part of how gender as a social structure entraps them. This cannot be fixed by telling them the aesthetics they like are bad and they should just change their taste through sheer will; It can only be fixed by attempting to sever the connections between those aesthetics and the continuation of oppression, to “free” them and allow them to then grow organically into their own forms of expression and entirely new aesthetics.

DISCLAIMER: I have never read society of the spectacle or anything like that, I just have an attachment to how certain aesthetics look and think that, without any other

Also I think I agree with you in the sense of behaviors and such

I don’t think this is true though, because what I’m talking about is masculinity and femininity, not gender. The aesthetics of masculinity and femininity are influenced by and came from gender constructs, there’s no denying that, and what fits under those aesthetics constantly changes and varies based on circumstance and time, and of course these aesthetics can feed into and influence conceptions of gender and other things significantly, but they are still able to be treated as primarily aesthetics.

First of all, with your example, Scotland masculinity is associated with kilts and skirts because of a cultural association and how that aesthetic was constructed. Yes, it came from gender, patriarchal norms, conditions, etc, but the aesthetic itself is only a small part of gender and an aspect that would exist regardless of gender’s existence (as in, if we removed all the material and social pressures for people to be a binary gender, not if we removed it from existence retroactively); Definitely not in the same exact form, but people would still follow aesthetic trends and preferences. And, even if we were to snap our fingers and delete gender, people would probably still identify with and prefer presenting as masculine or feminine or both or neither or whatever new things people create. And of course, what they would perceive as each would vary significantly from person to person.

Case in point: GNC trans people. Trans tomboys and femboys exist, and they are not only valid but very based and cool. These are people who find gender affirmation in feminine aesthetics as a man and masculine aesthetics as a woman. Butch lesbian women exist, too, and consider themselves women despite many of them also explicitly presenting as masculine, as well.

My overall point is that a kind of revolutionary masculinity would not involve trying to rehabilitate reactionary ideas for the sake of appeasing men, by claiming that certain personality traits or behaviors are somehow manly or not manly, but instead a creation of an aesthetic that appeals to those who identify with the aesthetic of masculinity in general right now, but with more revolutionary undertones. Effectively, accelerating the abstraction of the signifier away from the material to then reground a new swathe of signifiers we create in revolutionary movements and material beliefs. That sounds right, idk

MY VEGAN SWEDISH FISH RIPOFFS

ILL KILL YOU FOR THIS SLIGHT TRADER JOES, MARK MY WORDS. YOU HAVE MADE A VERY ANNOYING ENEMY. SEND ME A LIFETIMES SUPPLY OF “SCANDINAVIAN SWIMMERS” AND THE PISSING WILL STOP.

I can’t tell if this means they can’t respond with anything except the “” emote or if it means they can only respond with what it represents

I was (somewhat jokingly) referring to the whole “kill all kkkrakkkers” kind of posts as white on white racism

Making another post because I wonder if the sheer amount of white people doing it is because, unlike what reactionaries think, non-white comrades aren’t actually “reverse racist” against white people, and probably are genuinely uncomfortable with doing the bit. I might be wrong, I’m a white so I don’t know for sure.

It could also have something to do with the fact that statements of hatred against all white people is something that meets physical consequences in the real world for non-white people when they say it, so unlike white people who are able to say it without consequence, non-white comrades have to struggle past the ever-present implicit threat that white supremacy poses to make any such statement.

So these two things might be why we usually see “fuck all kkkrakkkers” type posts made by white people. It’s both a lot more awkward to jokingly deride a group you’re not a part of, and similar behavior is more likely to receive backlash by white supremacist forces IRL when it is done by non-white as opposed to white people (I only use “non-white” as a signifier here to denote between people with and without white privilege)

I agree, bits aren’t worth possibly turning our non-white comrades away if it comes acrosa as performative

Thank you

In a different context, like if you were sharing critiques of white supremacy (in person) with someone who is ignorant of them, I do think that would be a distraction from the point and likely to confuse.

Yeah, and I do have some faith, maybe misplaced, but some, that most people would immediately regard it as weird for someone to just constantly talk about how much they hate white people while someone else does serious analysis right in front of them.

can't there be a middle ground between thin-skinned identification with mayoism and performative self-flaggelation

genuine theory-based understanding of white supremacy and an active willingness to not reaffirm and complete the self-flagellation rituals. this ironically means believing you're One Of The Good Ones, but innately, instead of trying to affirm it. (This makes sense because I always got the impression the issue with "not all men" type statements was their implicit ignorance of what are social statements, not blanket statements, so the reason they're annoying is because they're technically true but in a way that misleads readers away from social analysis. I'm just some cracker but if you were to apply this same principle to this conversation it seems like saying "I hate white people" isn't actually annoying in that way because it doesn't draw attention away from societal issues, though it may be annoying in the sense that it's a form of toxic self-harm that could spill over if you used in excess)