Too late for you now, is my guess - you’ll sadly be wailing about ‘patriarchy’ in your wheelchair.

STAN: My college was the US Army, 1970-1996. I didn’t grow out of feminsm, but into it. Be gone, troll! Poof!!!

I also do not think we can create a “class movement” on a global level. People are not disposable machines that are subservient to ideology. People take pride in their individual achievement and their pride is increased if their achievement benefits those around them in the process (assuming they have an ounce of morality in them).

People also blame themselves when their “individual achievement” doesn’t measure up to the grim reality of life within an economic system where they are heteronomous and their labor is alienated. This was Arthur Miller’s point in having his character Willy Loman commit suicide at the end of his play Death of a Salesman. So the ideology of individual achievement cuts both ways, and if (like Willy Loman) we have nothing else, we are indeed disposable machines to an ideology.

To me, the point of organizing a movement oriented around collectives would be to allow the achievers to feel that they are not alone in their achievements, as indeed they are under capitalism. We can have collectives under capitalism. But our collectives are indeed superficial if they are not rooted in our connectedness to each other and to the world. Where we stand today, our labors are alienated to corporations and markets. Thus, then, eventually, the dream of a class movement, specifically a WORKING class movement, in which we create a “union of free producers” co-producing our society. Maybe not today or tomorrow or next year. But as a dream, yes.

The class movement, however, must also be decentralized. Any real revolution in human affairs, as I tried to point out here, will have to adopt an ecological discipline, so as to save what’s left of our planet from being crushed under capitalist tractors. We adopt ecological discipline by putting ecology first in our productive practices and defending our right to do it on specific plots of land. We will indeed have to adopt the other liberatory struggles too. I think the struggles can be reconciled with each other through meditation on history.

The idea of “ranking” race, class, and gender seems to me to be beside the point. At this stage in our collective struggle, it seems to me, we do a lot of good by encouraging the silent to speak, and by opening debate about that which is taken for granted. Social domination has been achieved over the centuries by granting communicative rights to the few, and by letting them set our agendas. Against this, we defy patriarchy by enabling the victims of rape culture to plot its demise; we defy capitalism by enabling its victims to voice credible alternatives to capitalist life.

It’s easier for me to imagine the former, against patriarchy, than it is for me to imagine the latter, against capitalism. This doesn’t mean for me that one struggle is more important than another; but I can see more clearly how enabling a multitude of anti-capitalist voices could be really difficult.

As for the chicken and the egg, patriarchy is always hierarchical, by definition. No exceptions. And one could argue that the very idea of hierarchy was and continues to be forged within the context of patriarchy. One cannot exist without the other. Therefore, the idea of some original primordial matriarchy is dead wrong. Matriliny exists, matrilocality exists, gynocentrism exists (sometimes right together with patriarchy)but matriarchy, as some kind of mirror-image of patriarchy, does not and has never existed. Matriarchy is just an oedipal fear, a carry-over and magnification of the frustration of infantile fantasies of omnipotence.

I know these are strong claims, but I am not just making them up out of my head. People should study up on anthropology, read a lot, do a lot of research, and see to what conclusions it leads.

“(T)he contradictions that disunite, that make unitarian conduct seem impossible, remote, distant, WILL, as Mao predicted from his observations of the oppressed mentality, become less apparent and then disappear altogether with revolutionizing practice. In the throes of combat, unitarian conduct will almost flow naturally; it will not have to be contrived or strained; the pressure from without, from the enemy of all will force us to tolerate each other’s humanity.”

I used to feel bad that I had no shoes.

Until I met a man who had no class.

We can do without the classisms, for sure. But not style. Got to have style. Miles and miles and miles of style.

Sorry. Couldn’t resist. Please drive through.

Which came first - the hierarchal chicken or the patriarchal egg?

So where did/does the “hierarchal mindset” come from?

When did this “system of persons or things ranked one above another” get such a hold on us?

And how is that mindset, that structural myth, that mind-forged manacle, that breeder of enmity, that almost universal Big Lie that costrains us all to categorize and divide up and sort out and rank and other every human being on the planet sustained and perpetuated and enforced?

Near as I can tell we need look no further than our own beds for answers. The over-ruling dom/sub power dynamic between persons has got to go. Patriarchy *is* the root archy - the father of all archies. The first sort was and is according to sex. It’s closest to home. It must begin there.

How can one say they love the brothers they haven’t seen if one doesn’t love their sister they have?

I agree. There is no such thing as a “trivial” effort. It is better to do one small thing than nothing at all. I also agree that individual change will also have to occur before achieving a reasonably just society. I think people who trivialize individual effort and worth really miss the point. The argument of the forest and the trees is so apt. One cannot exist without the other and the individual is AS important as the group.

Sacrificing individuals for the group is immoral in my framework of thinking and vice versa. Cultural change occurs simultaneously with individual change. The cells in our body continue to change and we change with them as a human being, but they occur together in a natural way.

We can never “force” people to believe what they do not want to believe, that is, we cannot force people to believe in justice and treat each other equitably (oops, a liberal term?). True change will come when people are “convinced” that what they are doing is good for EVERYONE and when they CHOOSE to participate as free individuals.

The reasons most revolutions have failed after the initial euphoria of “victory” has worn off is that those who took power by force were just as entrenched in the systems of tribalism, patriarchy, nepotism, and immorality that plagued their predecessors. It was part of their value system and upbringing and they really did not give it much soul searching thought. Even “revolutionaries” can be self-centered, self-serving and immoral. They can be also be pretty intolerant and vindictive. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast. Such activism does attract militant types who are focused on one thing alone, their own values and what THEY think is right for everyone (no different from many religious zealots really). The “struggle” becomes the issue and all other things are expendable. Zealousness is very easy because it does not require much thinking and “inner struggle.” It is easy to serve someone or an ideology. It is far more difficult to struggle mindfully to achieve the best possible outcome in a calculated and long-term manner. After successful revolutions, those who take power usually become lax and fall into the excesses of their predecessors. It is hard to be in a constant state of vigilance and, you have to be to maintain justice.

It is also a world culture problem that is rooted in the symbiosis of individual and group behavior that has learned that might is “right” and that those who can “will.” Our laws, religions, and moral values are meaningless if we only pay lip service to them and do not practice them in our everyday lives. They can also be the fascade for social control through double speak. Rulers talk about peace and justice, while engaging in war and oppression. This has been a well-understood tactic across all generations. The problem is that most of us sods on the bottom continue to believe in this hog wash and we continue to fall for it because we do not think beyond our immediate morality. This is the way the world is and that is why individuals are very important. Without individual initiative, no matter how small, we cannot have positive change and the breaking away from the flock.

Christ is one of the most notable revolutionaries in our recorded history, and look where he ended up and what his legacy has been. His mission of advocacy for women and the ostracized continues to be perverted by his followers who are really entrenched in a patriarchal system controlled by the old value system.

We cannot advocate for justice for women and the poor when we continue to buy from Wal-Mart and when we continue to support the means that oppress them. Pornography is an example. I am a firm believer that pornography is very demeaning to women in the way it is disseminated and portrayed. However, we cannot and should not force people or individuals to not engage in it if they choose to want to. The most important reasons being: people do have a choice and badgering people about their morals will not change their views about women. The best possible approach (and there is no sure-to-work approach) would be for each one of us to practice what we are preaching and continue to educate others. I am a firm believer that we learn best by role modeling as opposed to being told what to do. Most dysfunctional behavior comes from the discrepancy between our moral beliefs and our behavior. Most of us do NOT practice what we preach and we have grown up watching our parents and neighbors constantly violate what they teach. Those are important experiences that shape who we are as individuals and we should not discount them.

I really think the debate about what is more important, the individual or the society, is moot. Once we choose to value one more than the other, we minimize the importance of the other and that is unjust. Both the individual and society are entitled to justice. I do not believe in “sacrifice” as a general way of conduct to achieve anything. Most of the time it is so wasteful of human life, dignity, and property. Sacrifice has to be conducted as a “calculated” risk. In a way, its haphazard use can be immoral.

I also do not think we can create a “class movement” on a global level. People are not disposable machines that are subservient to ideology. People take pride in their individual achievement and their pride is increased if their achievement benefits those around them in the process (assuming they have an ounce of morality in them).

Which brings me to a last point. There are those people in the world who are immoral and psychopaths. Those cannot be reasoned with. They alone are responsible for much of the havoc in the world. Neither revolution nor legal system will negate their influence because they are your next-door neighbor, your teacher, your mother, and your priest.

We will never achieve true justice and a mass movement in the world. The best thing to do while we are alive is try our best with the abilities we have been given to help ourselves and each other and try to avoid the psychopaths as much as possible. Unfortunately, for many that is not possible, especially if they are born into a family with a psychopath or if they are born into unfortunate circumstances (like abuse, poverty, and war).

I’ve come along way in my thought but it now seems painfully obvious that patriarchy is a system of power that is very deeply rooted, complexly entwined and largely unexamined in our society. That it goes very deep – deeper than class – is obvious when thinking about some basic human experiences: I spent the first 9 or so months of my life developing in my mother’s womb and several years after that listening to her heartbeat while nursing. When thinking about this - I realize that this most basic experience is deep beyond reckoning. Now, soon after that (and long, long before I ever understood or was informed by class) I learned what was expected of me as a male. Indeed, the very process of learning and socialization is a rejection of the mother as understood to be feminine. This dualism informs all the way down into how we perceive ourselves existentially. I’ve been mulling over a theory that this dualism arose from an evolutionary (evolution is not “progress” on all levels) switch from foraging to harvesting – the first is integral and the other is mediated…but I digress.

I have never seen Stan or anyone else here claim that patriarchy has primacy over another kind of analysis – this kind hierarchal taxonomy is a key trait of a patriarchal mindset, capitalistic even. You can separate the two perhaps for the service of thought but if you are going to make a plan of action you better put them back together or else you got a plan that has no relevance to reality. That patriarchy should be stressed and more focus placed on it over a class analysis is meant as a corrective (it being largely neglected) doesn’t mean it is being given categorical importance. (if I am interpreting Stan intentions correctly) Besides if you are someone who claims to be interested in radical political change you don’t get much nearer to the root than this…

Taking another tack….The ideas of re-localization and communal independence make a whole lot of sense to me. I don’t want to fall into my own trap by giving it singular importance but it seems that if people have any hope (esp. men) of re-learning a new an more sustainable way of viewing the world it will have to be in an environment that fosters this kind of (re)learning.

I hope this makes sense and is not too rambling… this is relatively new territory for me.