@paul
At least you finally reveal your true card: anarchy
BUT
Your summary is incomplete and that you are right does not mean I'm automatically wrong.
Let's unravel this more closely!
1. You don't get to define when modern feminism start to be modern to win an argument, because modern mean that we are talking to the up to date version, which does include intersection, there is a reason it was inlcude in feminism and it was to adress shortcoming : P nice try
2. Within your own summary you failed to report the point I was making, ie that because the whole exist independently of its part does not mean the part does not exist on their own. A circle of flower is still a circle if made with fire even though the parts are different however a square of fire or flower is still not circle despite sharing similar part.
Similarly you know we can have vastly different game base on similar rules or even assets, as long the structure itself is different. It's not so much these parts need name but that they are also independent element from the whole, the whole forest vs trees dilemma. That one is true does not preclude the other to be true, a forest is made of tree does not preclude trees from existing. It works both way it's a non argument!
So that first part was already a way to demonstrate the shortcoming of your rhetoric, my second statements is more about calling a cat a cat as it does little to be a real argument.
Effectively, while it explain why you think that way, it explain very little about why you don't think patriarchy exist nor demonstrate it does not exist. Nor you demonstrate how patriarchy is effectively inside a bigger system you failed to define entirely at that point. That's why your statement is rhetorical, while in previous post I make a case about why patriarchy exist and is essential to define feminism, and how it produce gender role even in its anthropological definition mechanically. Not such things with your statements.
3. Regarding your example with a monster, you can also say that targeting vital part is essential to bring the monster down, ie attacking the heart or the brain who happen to be part, also correctly identifying part also allow to have control of the fight by understanding the interaction between them, ie understand them as a "system", i our monster metaphor it mean that to aim for the vital part you need to weaken the monster first like cutting appendices to reduce option to the monster. BTW that's how hercules dealt with the hydra, he burned the head so it could attain a vital part and land the final blow.
4. You haven't demonstrate the relation of the state with feminism problems at all, so the truth assertion not an argument but a belief. BTW bringing down the state does not mean that the social practice is brought down with him. If anything reality shows that the state lean favorably in terms of law toward feminism but the social practice does not follow. And if anything patriarchy is what allow the state to continue as it effectively target part of the population and weaken them by blocking access to resource, effectively allowing control of it's individual against themselves, that's why in the law he can pretend to be feminist and not enforce this value, it allow itself to escape criticism and appease the weaker element. Patriarchy enforce the state not the other way around, because institution are born from the power of the few.
A good example of this is how socio economical pressure have increased after the first social action of feminism like increased gendered toys add (like lego or video games who were gender neutral at first) letting society taking care of its member despite the law. BTW patriarchy transcend gender roles as we see that through the ages, even when gender attribute reverse the power remain ties to men, the last example of this is the reverse perception of who is "the childlike sex driven idiots incapable of managing money", use to be women, now its men, without power or prestige switching hand at all.
the thing ca mentioned was part of what i meant, yeah -- there are definitely e.g. black women feminists who resent that white feminists care so little about racism, and tend to downplay its importance. you just have to read twitter to find many discussions about that. so when i said that most feminists don't even know what intersectionality is, i meant that literally. even this browser doesn't know what intersectionality is; it's underlined in red, whereas patriarchy is not. that should tell you something right there
and i haven't demonstrated that the state causes the problems i mentioned, sure, but that's because that isn't the thread's purpose, and because other people have already done that better than me. if you're interested, read the anarchist literature; you are familiar with the feminist literature so it shouldn't be a stretch to expand your horizons a little
also, to be clear jamesprimate, i'm not "progressively minded" at all, except in the loose sense of wanting progress, but it's progress in a different direction. but i do not believe in many leftist causes -- for example, free health care or the minimum wage or a law saying that women have to be paid equal pay for equal work. those are progressive causes that i necessarily wouldn't support because i don't believe the state should exist. i don't think it'd hurt to do them, it'd probably help even, in the short term, but it'd be a band-aid, it wouldn't be solving the core issues
going after the heart of the monster rather than the limbs doesn't mean you don't care about what the limbs are doing, though. e.g. if one limb shooting someone, and another limb torturing some people, and another limb holding innocents in jail, and another limb forcing people to starve, going after the heart stops all of that at once. you have to choose your target somehow, and it's best to choose the target that will do the most good
i am not saying it's a bad thing to do things that are short-term good of course, for instance, i set up the indie game kiva group, which collectively has lent $54,000+ to the working poor in the third world --
http://www.kiva.org/team/indiegames -- that too is a "band-aide" in that microloans won't solve the fundamental problems of poverty caused by the state. i also do minor things like sign and spread petitions and articles about gamergate, etc. (you can check my twitter for that, at rinkuhero). also my current game project is an action-adventure game starring two women with a developing romantic relationship between them, and one of them is a scientist
but if that stuff were *all* i did, it'd be fruitless, you have to hit the heart, or evil will just keep happening. some people can specialize in cutting off limbs or fingers if they want though, sure, that's not a bad thing. it's not even necessarily a bad thing if they, individually, incorrectly view their own target limb as the biggest danger to the world. but it becomes an issue if they *help* the other limbs while attacking their target limb
so basically, as gimmy mentioned, gendered toys are a problem, but i don't think you can fight every problem in the world, you have to pick some. the doctors without borders group right now is fighting ebola, not gendered toys, and that's fine. feminists are fighting gendered toys, and not ebola, and that's also fine. but we shouldn't moralize and say that one group is more important than any other, or that if you don't do everything you can against one particularly worthy cause that means you're a bad person. e.g., have you donated to doctors without borders, to help them fight ebola? i have, but i don't hold that up over you, saying you don't care about ebola if you didn't donate anything
basically, here is my advice for how to do the most good in the world. this will matter more than anything else you can do. buy some property. put some solar panels on it. go off of the electricity grid. have a career that allows you to work from home. grow all your own food. get a 3D printer, and learn to create most of the items you need through it. through opting out of the "system", and becoming self-sufficient, the structure of society can be changed, and oppression reduced. what creates the oppression is the system of some people having power over other people. what can reduce that is people becoming self-sufficient as much as possible (in food, energy, financially, and however else possible). if enough people do that, most of the problems of the world can be resolved, through a change in the way society is set up. patriarchy, poverty, the drug wars, racial inequality, classism, and many other problems would be greatly reduced if people lived like i describe, rather than as cattle serving corporations and governments
Player
