I agree with your supply / demand theory - just adding that with the cost of a voyage decreasing and an increase in wages more poor folks could afford the trip without needing the indenture to pay for it. And the american revolution also choked off the supply of brits.
That's an excellent point. A ship leaving Bristol or wherever in 1750 might still sink in a storm or whatever, but it's a far cry from when the voyage was on relatively virgin sea lanes and destined for a tiny flyspeck port that had little worth selling to pay for the return trip.
Hmm. Well, I have to say, I'm a little disappointed, guys. You want to insist that all feminism means is gender equality and you can't even recommend one book (well, except for Comrade Hawkshaw's, which is a criticism of mainstream, petit-bougeois, white girl feminism).
Comrade Hawkshaw mentioned Andrea Dworkin. She was/is nuts. Catherine MacKinnon, who spent the '80s campaigning alongside Christian fundamentalists to outlaw pornography (some success in Canada, IIRC). Naomi Wolf, who's theory of The Body Myth, according to various anti-feminists and Camille Paglia, is made up from wholecloth with no scientific basis whatever (I never read it, couldn't say.)
Not marginal figures in the feminist movement; also, good reasons why non-misogynistic, rational people would say "I am no feminist..."
Anyway, gay dude on feminism:
"Patriarchalists know that women are dangerously different from men, and not as intelligent (though they have their competencies: needlework, child-care, detective stories). When a woman does show herself to be superior at, say, engineering, Freud finessed that anomaly by reminding us that since she is bisexual, like everyone else, her engineering skill simply means that she's got a bit too much of the tomboy in her, as W.C. Fields once remarked to Grady Sutton on a similar occasion.
"Women are not going to make it until the Patriarchalists reform, and that is going to take a long time. Meanwhile the current phase of the battle is intense and illuminating. Men are on the defensive, shouting names; they think that to scream 'd#%#' is enough to make the girls burst into tears, but so far they have played it cool. Some have even admitted to a bit of dyking now and then along with warm mature heterosexual relationships of the deeply meaningful fruitful kind that bring much-needed children into the world ('Good f%$#s make good babies'--N. Mailer). I love you Marion and I love you too, Marvin. The women are responding with a series of books and position papers that range from shrill to literature. In the last category one must place Eva Figes who, of the lot, is the only one whose work can be set beside John Stuart Mill's celebrated review of the subject and not seem shoddy or self-serving.
"In effect, the girls are all writing the same book. Each does a quick biological tour of the human body, takes on Moses and St. Paul, congratulates Mill, savages Freud (that mistake about vaginal orgasm has cost him glory), sighs over Marx, roughs up the Patriarchalists, and concludes with pleas for child-care centers, free abortions, equal pay, and--in most cases--an end to marriage. These things seem to be well worth accomplishing. And even the enemy are now saying that of course women should be paid the same as men for the same work. On that point alone Women's Lib has already won an important battle because, until recently, the enemy was damned if a woman was going to be paid as much as he for the same job."
--Gore Vidal, "Women's Liberation: Feminism and Its Discontents," 1971.
iI resent being told that I am somehow part of the problem because i have not joined the movement.When it comes to social change, the classic slogan "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", is more true than most people are willing to admit.
If you're not actively working to change your own taught perceptions and routines about women, minorities, or some other social issue, you most likely ARE helping to perpetuate the issue, frequently without realizing it.
Talk about double secret probation. Its so well hidden even YOU can't find it in your own head...
Remind me why we're supposed to think this is the case?
Look, men and women are different. The differences go well beyond an innie or an outie. Its really not all that surprising that people treat men and women differently: sometimes worse in some aspects and sometimes better. I don't think its fair to bundle every situation where its worse for women (usually culturally enforced) and try to balance it with equally discriminatory practices with the weight of law behind it.
|
She was/is nuts. Catherine MacKinnon, who spent the '80s campaigning alongside Christian fundamentalists to outlaw pornography (some success in Canada, IIRC).
Dworkin & Mackinnon were peripherally involved in a criminal obscenity case - they were consulted by an intervenor (LEAF). http://leaf.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/1992-Butler-Factum.pdf.
It was a constitutional case about state censorship and obscentity. It was a victory for anti pornographers and a blow to alternate lifestyles at the time. It's not the last time LEAF has found itself arguing the same point as christian right wingers in Canada for different reasons (the polygamy reference in BC being the most recent).
Hate to argue with an aspiring Canadian lawyer, but where you say MacKinnon was "peripherally involved," Wikipedia writes "In February 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada largely accepted MacKinnon's theories of equality, hate propaganda, and pornography, citing extensively from a brief she co-authored in a ruling against Manitoba pornography distributor Donald Butler." Link
Also, Cultural Marxist bonanza! My comrades invited me to go, and though I've never seen Angela Davis before, and Vijay Prashad has become one of my go-to guys for anti-imperialist analysis, I've seen Chomsky enough for one lifetime.
|
|
Hate to argue with an aspiring Canadian lawyer, but where you say MacKinnon was "peripherally involved," Wikipedia writes "In February 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada largely accepted MacKinnon's theories of equality, hate propaganda, and pornography, citing extensively from a brief she co-authored in a ruling against Manitoba pornography distributor Donald Butler." Link
Also, Cultural Marxist bonanza! My comrades invited me to go, and though I've never seen Angela Davis before, and Vijay Prashad has become one of my go-to guys for anti-imperialist analysis, I've seen Chomsky enough for one lifetime.
Jupp - sorry - Dworkin was peripherally involved (consulted and then wrote a letter opposing LEAF's position). Mackinnon was one of three authors (Mahooney, Mackinnon, and Taylor).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's idiotic.
Your response has nothing to do with what I said. Fact of the matter is that many practises of prejudice and discrimination are rooted in the background we grew up in, things we take for granted, things we were taught by society, family, the peers we grew up with.
It's not an issue of treating people differently, in many ways its why we treat them.
If you hold the door for a woman because you're being polite, there's nothing wrong with that, especially if you'd hold the door for a man under the exact same circumstances. If you're holding the door for a woman only because she is a woman, then you're part of the problem.
And if I might wait to hold the door open for a few seconds longer for a man than a woman so what? If I'm trying to decide whether or not to stand there holding a door I'm considering how far away they are, how fast they're moving, whether or not they're carrying anything, whether there's wind on the door, how cold out it is .. whats it matter if i toss on one more variable? I mean am i supposed to get an excel sheet and a distance measuring laser to ensure some kind of parity?
Not to mention times when this would get you arrested. If i break up a fight between two guys its grab shirt A or neck A, grab shirt or neck B, and push. You do that with two women or even a woman and you're going to get arrested.
I mean on the one hand, I'm being told I can't treat women any differently than men or I'm a club dragging neanderthal. On the other hand I'm often told I have to try to imagine (or i should have some innate knowledge of) whether or not I'm scaring a woman and to avoid say, going into an elevator with them at night or i'm an inconsiderate club draging neanderthal.
Can't have it both ways.
Jupp - sorry - Dworkin was peripherally involved (consulted and then wrote a letter opposing LEAF's position). Mackinnon was one of three authors (Mahooney, Mackinnon, and Taylor).
I don't understand; I tried reading through it but I don't speak legalese.
So, MacKinnon and Dworkin found themselves on different sides of the issue?
Michael Moorcock Interviews Andrea Dworkin!
Never let it be said that Comrade Anklebiter has nothing to contribute!
Yeah, as I said, I'm no feminist. I try to treat people courteously, regardless of gender. However, there are individual feminists who have a problem with me doing this because no matter what, they are going to think I'm trying to encourage some type of horrible sexist practice that states that women are helpless somehow, or worse, that I'm trying to get into their pants.
Trying to get into their pants is probably the only way I treat women differently from men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, as I said, I'm no feminist. I try to treat people courteously, regardless of gender. However, there are individual feminists who have a problem with me doing this because no matter what, they are going to think I'm trying to encourage some type of horrible sexist practice that states that women are helpless somehow, or worse, that I'm trying to get into their pants.Oddly enough, despite all the people of genders and species I've opened doors for in my half century, I've never run into that problem.
Oddly enough, despite all the people of genders and species I've opened doors for in my thirty three years, I've run into this problem on several occasions.
I didn't realize there were vast cultural differences between NYC and Newark.
I didn't realize there were vast cultural differences between NYC and Newark.
I do like what Cory Booker's doing.
I still don't understand what your point is? Are you trying to say that sexism doesn't exist?
I think it exists, but I think you're expanding the definition to ludicrous proportions.
Or isn't something that we should be doing anything about?
I do not think some aspects of what you consider sexism need fixing. If someone holds a door for women but not for men I don't think anything bad will become of it.
or are you just refusing to accept the possiblity that like almost all of us, you've contributed to the problem at one time or another?
I don't think large swathes of what you're complaining about ARE a problem.
And here's the place I'm coming from: why is SEXism any worse than any other ism? If holding the door open for a woman is sexism, then holding the door open for the elderly is ageism, and doing it for someone in a wheelchair is ableism. Being nice to the elderly is also ageism.
I held the elevator for a woman today and I realized I probably wouldn't have for a guy. Like, maybe, but probably not. And it wasn't a woman I know, and I definitely wasn't attracted to her.
This is the point where I start to understand why people believe in cultural Marxism. As a liberal, *I* want to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the law. No job, pay, educational discrimination, want to make sure they're equally protected by the police and other agencies, etc.
I don't, however, want to enforce any sort of new behavioral norms through peer pressure, shaming, and control of the language (political correctness).
|
meatrace,
Is it ok to refer to African Americans as boy, or n****r? I doubt you think it is. Is it illegal? Not as far as I know. So how was that made unacceptable? By creating new behavioural norms throguh peer pressure, shaming and control of the language. I don't think doing the same for 50% of the popualtion is too much to ask, do you, really?
How on earth do you equate calling someone the n word to holding a door open for someone?!
Seriously.
But you're barking up the wrong tree because I think the n word gets a bad rap. We shouldn't censor language. Period. If you want to think ill of someone that uses the n word, then that's your right.
So, yes, I think that asking 50% of the population to RADICALLY change all behavior to give insanely sensitive people complete control over their lives, their language, and their thoughts, is far far too much to ask.
|
|
I don't, and didn't intend to make that connection. You said you didn't want to "creating new behavioural norms throguh peer pressure, shaming and control of the language". That's a fairly blasnket statement of intent that isn't restricted to opening doors. It refers to everything. Making the place unconfortable by using derogatory language is legal but accomplishes the same as a "No blacks" sign on the door. It's equally unacceptable as if it was enforced by law. It's stopped by peer pressure. The law ccannot change society on its own without peer pressure. Are some people going too far? Probably. Some people usually do. Then they get peer pressured to stop.
Holding doors open is a relatively minor thing, but it isn't exactly a central complaint of most feminists, is it?
Yes, I think we should all stop talking about holding doors and get back to how women's emancipation can only be successfully won through socialist revolution.
Although I agree with Comrade TOZ. That's how I hold doors open for men and women alike. Unless I'm trying to get in their pants.
Goblins do it in the doorway!
And here's the place I'm coming from: why is SEXism any worse than any other ism?
Are you implying we should only ever care about the worst atrocity in the world at any given time?
For example, taking this concept to a logical conclusion, because genocide exists somewhere in the world, we should erase our laws about vandalism, animal cruelty and theft, because those are clearly all lesser concerns.
Edit: this isn't to say all problems are equal or that everyone all the time needs to be concerned over everything. Concerning sexism, I think a major component amongst men is just realizing a problem does exist and how it can manifest. This isn't about blame, accusations or restrictions, its just about awareness.
Do some activists go to far? Sure. I highly doubt being pissy about them is going to make things better though.
Speaking as a goblin, I think we should get rid of laws against vandalism, animal cruelty and theft.
Down with dogs!
Vive le Worgs!
And here's the place I'm coming from: why is SEXism any worse than any other ism?Are you implying we should only ever care about the worst atrocity in the world at any given time?
For example, taking this concept to a logical conclusion, because genocide exists somewhere in the world, we should erase our laws about vandalism, animal cruelty and theft, because those are clearly all lesser concerns.
To get from what I said to what you said can only happen if you take a shortcut through Crazytown.
Allow me to course correct.
I consider myself a feminist. What that means to me is that I think that women should be equal to men under the law. This extends to the workplace due to equal opportunity and sexual harassment legislation.
I just plain think that everyone should be treated the same under the law (other than minors or people under legal guardianship).
What I'm saying is that many feminists, including, apparently, some in this thread, don't seem to be fighting for equality for all but have only their pet injustice in mind and it blinds them to other, equal injustices.
Furthermore, desiring everyone to be treated the same under the law is not going to keep me from treating people differently in my personal affairs. I treat my friends differently than my enemies. I treat my girlfriend differently than I treat other women, or other people in general. When I go shopping I inevitably have to get something off a high shelf for someone who is short.
The truth is that there are no defined tenets for feminism any longer. Thus there are 3 billion opinions about what it means and individuals end up injecting a fair amount of personal preference when it comes to attempting to dictate what we can and can't do in our personal lives.
When someone tells me I'm "part of the problem" for holding the door for a woman, I'm going to call their BS. I'm just plain not going to question my motives when it comes to doing nice things for people, because I'm an a*$$#%~ and those things are rare enough as it is, and that way lies madness.
|
Although I agree with Comrade TOZ. That's how I hold doors open for men and women alike. Unless I'm trying to get in their pants.
Goblins do it in the doorway!
Fascinating thought.
Anyway, sometimes I do open the door and allow other to go first. Usually when the two of us are approaching at the same time and the door swings to my side. It's hardly an exact science, and mostly gets figured out as I go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I agree with Comrade TOZ. That's how I hold doors open for men and women alike. Unless I'm trying to get in their pants.
Goblins do it in the doorway!
Fascinating thought.
Anyway, sometimes I do open the door and allow other to go first. Usually when the two of us are approaching at the same time and the door swings to my side. It's hardly an exact science, and mostly gets figured out as I go.
You monster.
AM NOT MONSTER, AM HUMANOID BEING!
And here's the place I'm coming from: why is SEXism any worse than any other ism?Are you implying we should only ever care about the worst atrocity in the world at any given time?
For example, taking this concept to a logical conclusion, because genocide exists somewhere in the world, we should erase our laws about vandalism, animal cruelty and theft, because those are clearly all lesser concerns.
To get from what I said to what you said can only happen if you take a shortcut through Crazytown.
Allow me to course correct.
I consider myself a feminist. What that means to me is that I think that women should be equal to men under the law. This extends to the workplace due to equal opportunity and sexual harassment legislation.
I just plain think that everyone should be treated the same under the law (other than minors or people under legal guardianship).
What I'm saying is that many feminists, including, apparently, some in this thread, don't seem to be fighting for equality for all but have only their pet injustice in mind and it blinds them to other, equal injustices.
Furthermore, desiring everyone to be treated the same under the law is not going to keep me from treating people differently in my personal affairs. I treat my friends differently than my enemies. I treat my girlfriend differently than I treat other women, or other people in general. When I go shopping I inevitably have to get something off a high shelf for someone who is short.
The truth is that there are no defined tenets for feminism any longer. Thus there are 3 billion opinions about what it means and individuals end up injecting a fair amount of personal preference when it comes to attempting to dictate what we can and can't do in our personal lives.
When someone tells me I'm "part of the problem" for holding the door for a woman, I'm going to call their BS. I'm just plain not going to question my motives when it comes to doing nice things for people,...
I really don't see a lot of what you're talking about, I skimmed a couple pages of this thread and didn't really see it here either.. I do see reactionary people take a couple of over zealous feminists and portray them as the vast majority of feminists. In general, I think you and I might agree that over zealous people are usually a problem, regardless of their ideology or cause.
I've never thought that people holding a door were part of the problem. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up. I would agree, that if someone yells at you for holding a door open for them, they're probably just an a!%#@%!.
A problem does exist though. When roughly a quarter of women in this country will be a victim of sexual assault or rape, I can't see how it can be argued that a problem doesn't exist.
If you want to get into nitty gritty about what does and does not contribute to that, I could see that and I think there is room for debate around some of that. But the people who are most vulnerable to rape in our country are not the ones who hold the most power.
A lot of the info in that does well to show how difficult it is to document accurate statistics, and how rape is less about sex and more about power. Inmates are more likely to be abused by prison staff than other inmates. Women also have twice the chance of men to be a victim, but there are a lot more men in prison.
I think prison rape stories are more examples of what is wrong with our prison system than any kind of evidence that women are inflicting some sort of feminist based matriarchy on men.
I don't think there is any evidence that women are inflicting matriarchy on men, despite what my father thinks when my mother asks him to do the dishes.
There's more than one study showing a correlation between housework and sex in married couples. Men who do more housework tend to have more sex.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's more than one study showing a correlation between housework and sex in married couples. Men who do more housework tend to have more sex.
So you're trying to claim, what, that if you do you do more house work, your wife will just suddenly be happier with you? And that she will reflect that happiness in her treatment of you?
That's exactly the kind of propaganda the Cultural Marxists employ to bring their agenda to fruition! Pretty soon we'll all be oversexed house-husbands, too besotted by fornication to do anything but wash the dishes and other such womanly tasks!
It seems very capitalist to me, a vague economy where goods and services are exchanged, but no one understands how prices are determined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please excuse me as I favorite my own post, I need to bookmark this for later.
Vive le Galt!
"The 1919 Programme of the Communist Party (as the Bolsheviks renamed themselves) declared that 'not confining itself to formal equality of women, the party strives to liberate them from the material burdens of obsolete household work by replacing it by communal houses, public eating places, centraul laundries, and nurseries, etc.' Housework and childcare would not just be the individual, private responsibility of women within the family but would be socialised and provided publicly by the state." (from It Doesn't Have To Be Like This: Women and the Struggle for Socialism by Christine Thomas)
Leaving you and your partner more time to do it in the street!
|
|
The issue is really tribalism.
Capitalism is based on the premise people spend their money best, with the problem being that large scale endeavors like banks and large corporations aren't individually spending "their" money any more than a bureaucrat working for the government it.
This becomes more and more true as people become more career mobile. I care significantly more if the company goes under if my pension is tied to it's success.
However, where things got wonky was with stock options, where it wasn't actually tied to success, but rather perceived success...
At the end of the day large scale capitalism and large scale communism have the same problem. Depersonalization of accountability. It ceases to be "your money" at a certain point.
Heigl wasn't wrong when he said people look out for their own self interests, he just didn't understand the scale of the machine, which he should have given the East India Company...
So back to tribalism. Entrenched power stays in power because they work toward self interest. As a white male, it is better for me to have white males in power so that in settings where I need access to things that are held by people in power, I will be talking to someone who looks like me.
That gives me an advantage.
Feminism is similar to the Irish or Italians getting together to get a foothold in the entrenched power structure that excludes them.
So of course it would threaten the entrenched power structure. That is the whole point.
It ain't like white men like myself want to give up how sweet it is to be a white man.
Cultural Marxism is just code for "Not letting the oligarchy stay the oligarchy". The oligarchy’s entrenchment is just as disruptive to a free market as any "cultural Marxism".
As I say to friends who say "Illegals" will steal their job. "Dude, if some guy who was raised in a third world country and can barely speak the language can beat you out for a job, he's better than you and he deserves it more."
And I don't want to hear anyone on the free market side dare to make a comment about wages...
There's more than one study showing a correlation between housework and sex in married couples. Men who do more housework tend to have more sex.
please inform my wife of this.
There's more than one study showing a correlation between housework and sex in married couples. Men who do more housework tend to have more sex.please inform my wife of this.
~LAUGHTER~
Why not? That's how all of the bad bigoted behavior is enforced. It's how cultural norms are established and maintained. If you're looking to establish new and better cultural norms than you need the same basic mechanisms to accomplish your goal.
I don't, however, want to enforce any sort of new behavioral norms through peer pressure, shaming, and control of the language (political correctness).
Because I'm not trying to make people change. Just the law.