

The Tyranny of Tyranny (2005) - tikhonj
http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-levine

======
jonrimmer
"Men tend to organise the way they fuck - one big rush and then that "wham,
slam, thank you maam", as it were. Women should be building our movement the
way we make love - gradually, with sustained involvement, limitless endurance
- and of course, multiple orgasms."

I reached this bit and gave up.

~~~
Yetanfou
If the original statement was made by a man it would be ground enough for
another diatribe against the X-deficient gender, clearly hell-bent on
diminishing the other gender's capacities.

It is as if history has made a full cycle and we'll soon be back in the 60's -
cold war included. Panem et circenses for the masses, I assume?

------
lukifer
I once heard the idea that marijuana is a more insidious drug than heroin; a
junkie knows that they're addicted, while a pothead can more easily convince
themselves that it's "only pot". The former might seek help, but the latter
seldom does.

Similarly, I don't think anyone contends that the "Tyranny of
Structurelessness" is morally or functionally equivalent to real-deal tyranny,
whether in the context of patriarchy, corporate politics, or corrupt
governments. Rather, unstructured tyranny is simply more subtle and insidious;
there are no votes, titles or edicts, and yet there are still ongoing
struggles for social capital, perception and political will. It's endemic to
the human animal.

Obviously, office politics is vastly superior to violent oppression. But we
shouldn't succumb to the fantasy that casting down hierarchies is going to
magically end the struggle for power; for better or worse, it merely sends
that struggle underground.

------
com2kid
Oddly enough the author brings up some good points, but wow, 500 words where 1
would do.

Various bits that stereotype males. The ideals[0] of equality state that every
person is an individual unto themselves, and should be evaluated and
communicated with as such. Creating a group to stereotype by focusing on a
singular attribute is foolish at best, and dangerous at worst.

All that said, some good points about the coopting of sub-culture and the
problems with men being disallowed to express their feelings contributing to
some social ills.

The author also uses the phrase "women's culture", which as a believed in
transhumanist philosophies I question. Again, it is creating a hard dividing
line based upon some physical characteristic, physical characteristics that
that hopefully one day will be as fluid as code.

[0] And yes, needless to say, this goes both ways.

