Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!

[Professor_Fennec]

In my opinion, it's one of those "they should know better" situations. As you said, the two sides are adversarial to each other, but being adversarial is the very problem the MRM purports to oppose. They also chose a name that was exactly as gender-exclusive as the feminists they oppose, again ostensibly for that very reason.

That's why I again say it's better to be an individualist. None of that crap comes along with it.

In reading Warren Farrell's book "The Myth of Male Power", I've come to realize why Stefan Molyneux.  Under Dr. Farrell's model, women are property [of the state] and men are less then property [of the state].  Its the difference between how a farmer treats breeding cows vs. how he treats the bulls sold to market for their meat.  You only need a few breeding bulls, but you need a lot of cows to make the next generation.  This fits the Tax Farm analogy perfectly. 

But this tells me that the narrative of Feminism, that patriarchy exists only to advantage men at the cost of female oppression, isn't just patently false but a misdirection away from the true villain, The State.   The only thing men and women get out of the system are a few privileges in the community bestowed upon them from the state, as well as a positive identity and perception among the community.  Neither one get any amount of self determination at all.

[tnu]

hey jsut as an aside has anyone here ever ehard of anarcha-femenism?

[Professor_Fennec]

I've heard of Libertarian Feminism.  Its the belief that a woman can best achieve independence and self actualization through individualism. 

It still holds to the quaint notion of patriarchy, though.  Patriarchy is a central tenant of Feminist dogma, where women are exploited by men for the benefit of men. 

In Anarchist thinking, per Stefan Molyneux, "The Patriarchy" is replaced by the "Tax Farm", where both sexes are exploited for the benefit of the Archons of a given society.  Women are the property of the state that function as breeders, and men are the throw away warriors and factory workers nobody gives a damn about. 

I don't see how anarchism is even remotely compatible with any form of anarchy, even anarchocommunism. 

[dallen68]

uh...what?

I don't see how anarchism is even remotely compatible with any form of anarchy, even anarchocommunism

Also, isn't "anarcho-" and "communism" mutually exclusive?

[Professor_Fennec]

uh...what?

Also, isn't "anarcho-" and "communism" mutually exclusive?

Anarchocommunism is anarchy without money.  Example:

[MrBogosity]

Anarchocommunism is anarchy without money.  Example:

That's actually anarcho-syndicalism; he says that in the sketch: "We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune."

[evensgrey]

Anarchocommunism is anarchy without money.  Example:

That would be a market without money, which is far less efficient than a market with money.  It might even be less efficient than Communism.

[Professor_Fennec]

That's actually anarcho-syndicalism; he says that in the sketch: "We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune."

Closest example I could find, though. 

The only other example I can think of is Catalonia for a very short period of time. 

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Anarchocommunism is anarchy without money.  Example:

And of course the problem there as I always say....

"So what if I want to use money anyway?  Are you going stop me?  By force if neccessary?
If so, congrats, you just invented government!"

[dallen68]

According to Wikipedia, Anarcho-communism is libertarian communism, which is an extension or form of libertarian socialism, which is defined as "Any of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy: prominent examples being capitalism and the State; especially one that encourages the direct seizure by the people of the means of production with the aim of moving toward the creation of a radical direct democracy."

Doesn't the "direct SEIZURE" part negate the claims to the "LIBERTARIAN" part? I mean I *don't care* if the asshat seizing my bank account is the government, or some random person that thinks my money is better used by the group. Why not go ahead and call it communism? Just because you're not CALLING yourself the government, if you're using the strength of the group to force compliance, you are a government.

[evensgrey]

According to Wikipedia, Anarcho-communism is libertarian communism, which is an extension or form of libertarian socialism, which is defined as "Any of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy: prominent examples being capitalism and the State; especially one that encourages the direct seizure by the people of the means of production with the aim of moving toward the creation of a radical direct democracy."

Doesn't the "direct SEIZURE" part negate the claims to the "LIBERTARIAN" part? I mean I *don't care* if the asshat seizing my bank account is the government, or some random person that thinks my money is better used by the group. Why not go ahead and call it communism? Just because you're not CALLING yourself the government, if you're using the strength of the group to force compliance, you are a government.

The definition doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.  How can you be opposed to the existence of a state and still insist on being able to perform classical state actions?  Pretty much the definition of a state is the entity that is not bound by the same rules that govern every other entity.

[nilecroc]

The definition doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.  How can you be opposed to the existence of a state and still insist on being able to perform classical state actions?  Pretty much the definition of a state is the entity that is not bound by the same rules that govern every other entity.

Plus they want a direct democracy, which worked out really well for the last group that tried it.

[Skm1091]

This was on fail quote. But I'm putting it here so it won't be lost in the fail quote thread.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

This was on fail quote. But I'm putting it here so it won't be lost in the fail quote thread.

I'm I the only one finding it ironic that she's complaining about gender identifiers while wearing make-up, lipstick. and hoop earrings?

[Travis Retriever]

Sounds like the verdict is in:
1)  She never was a fan of video games; so she lied.  This really was a con all along.
2)  Her white knights/sycophants/rabid fans will defend her to their graves no matter how much money she swindles out of them
3)  She is actually going to influence the design in games like Mirror's Edge 2.  Despite not being a gamer, not playing games.

If this shit keeps up, video games will be just like movies/TV are today--as hyper regulated, token and 'safe as not to offend any special interest group' and pathetic as can be.  Thankfully, at least I still have South Park and MLP:FIM, but damnit two data points an entire trend does not make.