Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Everyday Symbolic Politics


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Everyday Symbolic Politics Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/18/2010 5:11:29 PM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline 		I experienced a strange awkwardness recently at the library while checking out a copy of Friedrich Engels' classic The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. This short book uses evidence from American anthropologist Henry Lewis Morgan to argue that primitive peoples historical and contemporary tend to form egalitarian communities and that the subjugation of women corresponds with the rise of civilization proper. Because of its revolutionary implications, Engel's work holds a special place in feminist theory and activism.

From what I could tell, the cashier who checked out the book for me was a lesbian. I registered an awkward instance: Did she know what this book contains? Do we hold sympathetic views? Was this act on my part some kind of attempt at reconciling a past for which I bear passive responsibility? The strange dynamics admitted that both she and I possessed our own respective negative references to the male gender.

Fascinating is how similar the experience would prove had I been checking out some conspicuously objectifying book on women. There's a psychological event that occurs, where in becoming an object of analysis, one cannot shake the traces of one's objectivity even when reassuming the subjective role. We cannot wholly dismiss that so much investigation, whether scientific, historical, psychological, or artistic, interests itself primarily with its secondary effects, such that we wish not to see our peers but rather our peers being seen, and, more specifically, our peers being seen by us. That is to say, we wish to see in the object of our gaze above all the effects of this gaze, and the contents of the subjective person bear relevance only insofar as they are affected.

So... what do you think? Have you experienced this kind of phenomenon? I'm convinced that this is the way ideology works in our society, that the very instances in which civilization reveals its true face are those instances most subject to either censorship or psychological repression.

I wrote this following passage a while ago, but I make the same point:

quote:

Money constantly interjects. In capitalism, money intermediates all relationships. Money is an insistent middleman, and the middlemen grow fat and ugly, their stomachs bulging in tandem with their surplus. Their shape reveals the shape of excess, such that we can trace the relationship between overweight in winning capitalist nations and underweight in losing capitalistic, or non-capitalistic, nations.

I cannot resist the conclusion, therefore, that we have desperately avoided for these many years, namely, that capitalism necessitates a certain homosexuality in each and every daily relationship. Heterosexual sex exemplifies the non-vertical relationship, an interchange that can be interchanged in innumerable ways. Yet to achieve successful heterosexuality, once the surplus has been extracted, one must spend the long days engaging in vertical enterprise as a persistent top or bottom. Capitalism, therefore, represents the sublimation of homosexual aggression and a directional ordering.

The force of war, capitalism's driver, we can understand clearly then-- the gender isolation, the insistent back and forth of aggressions, the guns as extensions, the climactic explosions. The exclusion of gays from the military parallels the exclusion of whores from monetary society, as both phenomena strike too dear to the heart and essence of the psychological form of capitalism, capitalism as excess linked inextricably to our organs of excess and expulsion.


Truth be told, I'm not sure all of these conclusions are true, but I want to raise these issues, at risk of being wrong, simply to highlight areas in which civility prohibits the most symbolically rich phenomena, making history appear more simple, boring, and monogamous than in reality. This is how ideology works.


< Message edited by Silence8 -- 1/18/2010 5:12:55 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/18/2010 5:22:14 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		There's a good chance that the cashier never read the book and isn't familiar with it.
For the rest I'd call them "assumptions" not "conclusions" unless you mean they're "your" "conclusions."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Silence8)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/18/2010 5:38:43 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I liked Future Shock.   I think that exemplifies alot of today.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 2:11:21 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Interesting. I have ere postulated that nature put Men in a superior position, and I still stand by that. However that does not take into account the human trait of jealousy. Almost anyone in a position of power is bound to draw some resentment. This is not going to change anytime soon.

Now the impression that this clerk is a lesbian is something I will not argue. We simply don't know if it is true. But being a lesbian does not automatically come with any disdain for the opposite sex. Not right out of the box so to speak. Even if true, we don't know her motivation for this. Alot of people think lesbians are made because of an early trauma, such as sexual abuse or something. While this might be true of some, it is, at least from what I see, by no means universal.

So maybe she was fully aware of the contents of that book. Maybe she was just doing her job, which probably does not include giving opinions. You might find interesting discussion with this Woman if you break the ice just right. In time you can tell her you are a member here and invite her on in. Dykes can be very interesting people, as can many.

I'd see about opening up a discussion. If you felt something, well so what, that means something but not necessarily that you are trying to jump into bed with her. Once that is made clear, you may have made a new friend. I'd go for it.

T

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 10:02:50 AM   
MichiganHeadmast


Posts: 726
Joined: 8/13/2006
Status: offline 		So I guess you won't be picking up a copy of Ayn Rand's "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal."  

(in reply to Silence8)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 11:16:59 AM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline 		What I wonder is how the fuck you knew she was a lesbian...did you ask her? For the rest...well shit man you sure read a lot of BS into an everyday activity...who the fuck cares if the librarian (not cashier) knows what the book is about or not, she's there to check out books, not to judge you, and even if she did judge you so fucking what, who gives a rat's ass what a complete stranger thinks about you, do you worry what the cab-driver thinks of you, the mailman, the clerk at the local 7-11?
It must be nice to have nothing better to occupy your mind.


_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to MichiganHeadmast)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 11:53:34 AM   
erinroe


Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline 		In my humble opinion, you should be dead embarrassed by the "following passage" that you wrote a while ago, as it not only does not make the same point, as what I have just read, that came before your admission of having written it, but, it is highly inaccurate and boring!

If one must be highly inaccurate, one should at least strive to be entertaining about it. Please?

The reason less civilized societies are less likely to subjugate women is that the men in them need more help just to get by through the day. They cannot so easily compartmentalize the women in their life by function or by current need; they have to accept them as people, not those fun things that they stare at pictures of or chase around night clubs. Their survival depends on it. 

When they are living in a city, or some similar situation, wherein they can order food from a deli, take out, go into a restaurant, buy already butchered meat and picked vegetables, they have vacuums and rug cleaners, and all manner of things to help with the housework, and the number of a good maid service, they have little use for women.

As to homosexuality, it is established fact, through many fine studies that all mammalian beings who are of the sort who need their space, and who have a definite and distinctive structure to their society that precludes huddling together in an overcrowded state, react the same when forced to live in city-like habitats. To whit: they go completely barmy, start killing their own children, molesting children, killing other children, raping members of the opposite sex, raping members of the same sex, killing members of either sex, and eventually living with members of the same sex and overindulging in food, smearing crap on the walls, and generally behaving in a completely unnatural manner.

They've done the same study with pigs, rats, monkeys (who are very close to living in a city-like habitat, anyway), and, humans. They all go nuts! The more you stack them up on top of each other and crowd them by giving them smaller yards, by making racket at all hours of the night and day, by taking away more plants, the crazier they get.

Regarding your other statement, not the one you quoted, but, just the bits you were sharing before that unfortunate quote - yes! I have had strange experiences like that. However, they were mostly an experience only for me, as the other person had zero clue as to what I was feeling or why.

The only time I had an experience anything like that, that I can remember, where we were both fully aware of it, was when someone was asking me about why I was wearing so many shirts, especially the really long pipeline guard shirt, so I was explaining to them that, at first, it was just to keep warm, but I realized later that it helps to deflect the knives. And, a girl, standing across from me, went "Yeah, right! Like people just go around trying to stab .." and we both locked eyes and just knew .. there were two different worlds, two different realities, at play here. And she said something about how she couldn't imagine all the fear, whatever .. of living my life. And, I, equally shocked by her naivety, told her that at least I'm prepared when it happens and that I wouldn't be her for anything, because the first time someone breaks into her house, or punches her in the head, or whatever, she's going to fall apart.

Now, mind you, that's not exactly the same thing, I know; but, it's rather the same feeling.  There was that same odd kind of connection, a disparate sharing that excluded all else in the room. We were both in the one reality, and everyone else was looking in the window.

Also, I should point out that the homosexuals are no longer excluded from the military; but, when they were, it was not because of any political this or that or the other, relating to horizontal or vertical anything. It was just that a whole bunch of men 1) didn't want other men judging them based on their looks 2) didn't want to admit their own sexual preferences  or 3) didn't want to be rejected by a bunch of other men  lol  Case in point: no one even asked my friend, Rachel, if she was homosexual before she joined the Air Force. They didn't care. Women are not as paranoid, in general, as to whether or not other women are going to attack them in the shower; or as likely to assume that someone who finds their sex sexually attractive is going to automatically want to have sex with them. Yes, it happens, but, it's just not as likely to.




(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 11:57:36 AM   
erinroe


Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline 		PS: You have to take into account the other changes of a culture, as it gets progressively civilized.

As in, it may be true that I would be less fat if I was still living off the land, and the land and water were clean of toxins, and the animals and plants were all nice and healthy, and in that sense being monetarily poor, to the point of not being able to afford restaurants and not having to rely on greedy commercialistic grocers would, indeed, be a direct cause of my being a leaner individual.

But, I am not richer than I would be, then. And, I am not overweight for having been too rich and too overindulged, but, from being too poor and downtrodden and abused and ill-treated and denied medical care. So, consider those sort of things before you jump to your conclusions.


(in reply to erinroe)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 12:09:18 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		I am an awkward lesbian.

It is symbolic, really; everyday sorta shit.

Ron(ne)

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to erinroe)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 12:17:54 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am an awkward lesbian.

It is symbolic, really; everyday sorta shit.

Ron(ne)



I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

HST

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 12:32:56 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"As to homosexuality, it is established fact, through many fine studies that all mammalian beings who are of the sort who need their space, and who have a definite and distinctive structure to their society that precludes huddling together in an overcrowded state, react the same when forced to live in city-like habitats. To whit: they go completely barmy, start killing their own children, molesting children, killing other children, raping members of the opposite sex, raping members of the same sex, killing members of either sex, and eventually living with members of the same sex and overindulging in food, smearing crap on the walls, and generally behaving in a completely unnatural manner. "

Ahhhh, sounds like someone who has been living on the planet Earth for most of their life. The same type of study was done on deer, on a remote island. They found that the overcrowding actually resulted in physical changes as well. I have presented this article a couple of times but nobody wants to read it. It's also a bit cumbersome because it is scanned from a 25 year old supplement to an encyclopedia. I don't have much trust in OCR software. So they are JPGs. I could send it to a real email if you like, I think it is about six pages.

Society - I see it every day. I have made psychology a subject for self study for around 35 years now, and as much as I hate to be cliche', I see what you're saying. I am also beginning to see a bigger picture, one with ramifications which may be hard to accept for some. I see the rise in all forms of non-reproductive sex as a means by which the human race, acting as a unit, is trying to regulate the birth rate. I am not yet etching that in stone, but the indications are there.

However such an assumption infers that there is some sort of innate, or subliminal connection between all members of the human race. Something thusfar undetectable, but that doesn't mean it is supernatural in any way. There was a time we didn't know about gamma rays, and even didn't have UHF TV or FM radio. In other words, there is plenty of proof positive that just because we are unaware of something, that does not prove that it does not exist.

I don't know why bondage turns me on, and neither can a homosexual explain his or her desires. They are desires and they don't always make sense. Take the case of eye contact as mentioned before. Your eyes are not radio trancievers, at least as far as we know. But after many years of consideration my conclusion is that something actually is. Perhaps it is the pineal gland, the function of which seems to be quite elusive to modern medical science. Then there's that 5/6 of our brain they say we don't use. I submit that there is no way for them to tell decisively that we don't use it, they just don't know what for. Like tonsils, when they had no clue as to what they did, they assumed they did nothing. Later it was found that they are a part of the human immune system. I'm glad to still have mine. No matter what they do, let them do it.

After decades of study, I only know one thing. There is more out there than I will ever know. Nobody could ever prove to my satisfaction that something doesn't exist unless they are omnipotent. Got a spare God laying around we can consult about this ?

T

(in reply to erinroe)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 6:17:18 PM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Interesting. I have ere postulated that nature put Men in a superior position, and I still stand by that. However that does not take into account the human trait of jealousy. Almost anyone in a position of power is bound to draw some resentment. This is not going to change anytime soon.


This appears to be the most common belief, which I have held, but apparently the evidence is far from conclusive. One thing is that a lot of early societies were matrilineal, that is, they would organize kinship as well as, sometimes, property rights, in terms of the mother, not the father.

quote:


Now the impression that this clerk is a lesbian is something I will not argue. We simply don't know if it is true. But being a lesbian does not automatically come with any disdain for the opposite sex. Not right out of the box so to speak. Even if true, we don't know her motivation for this. Alot of people think lesbians are made because of an early trauma, such as sexual abuse or something. While this might be true of some, it is, at least from what I see, by no means universal.


This also occurred to me. In general, I think homosexuality might be able to offer some evidence on the human condition generally. In each case, as it were, there could be a number of factors in play.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 6:19:27 PM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

What I wonder is how the fuck you knew she was a lesbian...did you ask her? For the rest...well shit man you sure read a lot of BS into an everyday activity...who the fuck cares if the librarian (not cashier) knows what the book is about or not, she's there to check out books, not to judge you, and even if she did judge you so fucking what, who gives a rat's ass what a complete stranger thinks about you, do you worry what the cab-driver thinks of you, the mailman, the clerk at the local 7-11?
It must be nice to have nothing better to occupy your mind.



The everyday is a source for a ton of inspiration. No good writer, philosopher, or social scientist would ignore it.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 7:26:55 PM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erinroe

The reason less civilized societies are less likely to subjugate women is that the men in them need more help just to get by through the day. They cannot so easily compartmentalize the women in their life by function or by current need; they have to accept them as people, not those fun things that they stare at pictures of or chase around night clubs. Their survival depends on it. 

When they are living in a city, or some similar situation, wherein they can order food from a deli, take out, go into a restaurant, buy already butchered meat and picked vegetables, they have vacuums and rug cleaners, and all manner of things to help with the housework, and the number of a good maid service, they have little use for women.

Who has little use of women? ... 'Overuse' could maybe be argued, for people in general.

quote:


Also, I should point out that the homosexuals are no longer excluded from the military; but, when they were, it was not because of any political this or that or the other, relating to horizontal or vertical anything. It was just that a whole bunch of men 1) didn't want other men judging them based on their looks 2) didn't want to admit their own sexual preferences  or 3) didn't want to be rejected by a bunch of other men  lol  Case in point: no one even asked my friend, Rachel, if she was homosexual before she joined the Air Force. They didn't care. Women are not as paranoid, in general, as to whether or not other women are going to attack them in the shower; or as likely to assume that someone who finds their sex sexually attractive is going to automatically want to have sex with them. Yes, it happens, but, it's just not as likely to.

This is all very indirect. I'm assuming that homosexuality is consciously targeted in legal reality. You're giving excuses in personal reality, as if legal reality were an accidental effect of (your) personal reality.

(in reply to erinroe)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 7:39:11 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erinroe
The reason less civilized societies are less likely to subjugate women is that the men in them need more help just to get by through the day. They cannot so easily compartmentalize the women in their life by function or by current need; they have to accept them as people, not those fun things that they stare at pictures of or chase around night clubs. Their survival depends on it. 

Where is the dividing line on "less civilized"?  Women were subjugated in some Native American tribes, along with some African tribes, and certainly in some Middle Eastern nomadic cultures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erinroe
...react the same when forced to live in city-like habitats. To whit: they go completely barmy, start killing their own children, molesting children, killing other children, raping members of the opposite sex, raping members of the same sex, killing members of either sex, and eventually living with members of the same sex and overindulging in food, smearing crap on the walls, and generally behaving in a completely unnatural manner.

Then how do you explain homosexuality that occurs in rural/agrarian cultures?  Homosexuality's been present since recorded civilization, in cultures all over the world.

(in reply to erinroe)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Everyday Symbolic Politics - 1/19/2010 8:04:16 PM   
Silence8


Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am an awkward lesbian.

It is symbolic, really; everyday sorta shit.

Ron(ne)


Yeah? But the word 'awkward' is awkward. And weird weird.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Everyday Symbolic Politics Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094