|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yahoo! reported as news a long-standing truth that heterosexual males are looking for beauty in females while females are looking for wealth and security. This is still true in Germany; even though, German females are overwhelmingly well-off members of the petty-bourgeoisie, with the right to own property, have a job, vote etc.
The parasite female outlook on relationships has yet to come under sustained criticism except from MIM. MIM defines the theory of gender as being about leisure-time. Picking of mates based on their wealth or ability to provide security is not a leisure-time outlook. The technical term we use for this is that the female's outlook on wealth and security "reduces down to class." It's not even a gender question except as how there is problematic intertwining that needs dialectical unraveling.
Yahoo explained a study it was reporting this way: "The research team used data from 46 adults in a speed-dating session in Germany to compare what people said they wanted in a mate with the qualities of the people they actually chose." Despite what people said in interviews, "once the session began, men demonstrated more interest in attractive women, while women targeted measures of wealth and security in proportion to how attractive they believed themselves to be."
This is precisely the 'ho outlook that persists despite the wealth of Amerikan females. The Amerikan female continues to adjust to the leisure-time culture as if it were necessary as opposed to an opportunity to have fun.
The Amerikan male romantic outlook is intrinsic to leisure-time, but the female outlook seems to be still rooted in class or possibly pleasing parents with child-bearing. In the imperialist system where the majority of people are parasites, females do not consciously choose leisure-time dynamics except the gender bureaucracy which may attempt to develop a female consciousness of pleasure only to end up as oppressor men socially-speaking.
In this case, a theory of feminism "celebrating the perspective of wimmin" would lead to celebrating class outlooks on dating even more grossly than the male perspective, which is substantially more open to cross-class dating. In actual fact, the male perspective on beauty or pursuit of looks has more to say about gender than the female perspective harkening strictly to class. Class is going to disappear, so we have to dispense with the view of the Amerikan female. Already the Amerikan female's own view is disappearing as we speak.
Unconsciously, the Amerikan female does not experience pleasure in the same way as in the female of the past. That is what explains the declining birth rate seen under imperialism. Having children for one's parents' benefit or because it is custom is indeed oppressive and the bourgeois female begins to perceive this vaguely. Some people have children for intrinsic reasons while time has shown that many have had them for reasons of coercion historically.
At the same time, a strange culture of dating starts to proliferate in imperialism. Complaints ranging from anorexia to date rape depend on some kind of relationship to the heterosexual male. In some cases, the Amerikan female believes that the relationship to the male is in fact in existence for a reason to complain. The reason is that the Amerikan female has no intrinsic sense of pleasure related to the Amerikan male or it is much weaker. A common expression of this problem is the seeking of a relationship with male professionals who make good colleagues. As females have entered the workforce as professionals, they have done so without a clear concept of pleasure apart from work. This has led to pursuit of relations with males who make good colleagues but also good targets of complaint including and ranging up to date rape. What needs asking more often is why the professional female seeks her professional outlet through intense relationship with the heterosexual male.
In the short run, there is no solution for the leisure-time gap. The patriarchy question is bleak compared with the question of imperialism knotting up class and nation. In the long run, people may control their appearances through medical techniques. Technology may also make the question of sexual desire more open to the treatment of hormones or the like. In the future, people may choose to be in or out of synch with each other on questions of sexual desire, if sexual desire survives at all. After all, the people may choose to have harmonious relations by eliminating the appreciation of leisure-time beauty through bio-technical means. Perhaps if people can choose as individuals to be what we call typical male or female today, then much of the patriarchy will disappear.
Ideologically, MIM stresses that there is nothing inherently correct about wanting sex or having children under imperialism. Quite the contrary, it is the bourgeois female in the wrong if she tries to make a romantic partner out of a colleague--professional, spiritual or otherwise--unless there is male beauty.
MIM is fully aware that if we were to require that romantic relationships have an equal sense of beauty between the partners, the majority of heterosexual relations would have to disappear. So that is why at this time when these matters are not yet under scientific control, it is important not to conform to norms that do not fit. Mismatched ideas of leisure-time will lead to additional humyn strife beyond that produced by the oppressive class structure. Most people would prefer to defend the 'ho system one way or another than to look directly into the ugly truth of the present.
There is nothing wrong with people's having close relationships without any concept of beauty. Such relationships should be outside the romance culture.
Pseudo-feminism is often a gross expression of petty-bourgeois politics. 95% of so-called Marxism is petty-bourgeois politics and 99.9% of so-called feminism is also. It is the petty-bourgeoisie that wants everything both ways--the imperialists' way and also the proletariat's way. The petty-bourgeoisie is often a big fan of the Liberal illusion of individualism, as if neither the imperialists nor the proletariat existed to coerce society toward their goals. There is never any scientific discussion with a conscious member of the petty-bourgeoisie.
Feminist leadership is constituted by going in a direction toward equal and harmonious leisure-time, through a process of struggle of billions over the correct issues. Feminism is not having things both ways or adopting the perspective of females no matter how much they conflict with each other. Feminism is not the ideology of the 'ho system expressed in various forms.
Note:
http://fe11.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20070906/hl_hsn/womensbeautymenswealthkeytoromancestudy