Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- women [2018/11/04 12:54]
admin
+++ women [2018/11/04 13:01] (current)
admin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===== Women =====
 ==== How ====
@@ Line 66: / Line 67: @@
 EDITORS’ NOTE: In further chapters, we will discuss how women spearheaded the popular mass revolts that provoked a split in the U.S. ruling classes when the Trump administration called upon Federal troops to brutally disperse their demonstrations and sentenced activists to long prison terms. We will also study the origins of the famous March 8 International Assembly of Working Women, which inaugurated the first global strikes against  multinational corporations which forced them to their knees through a bottle-neck strategy interrupting their global supply-lines.
-==== Then ====
-Faced with an entrenched social evil, the media consensus in 2017 America was to indict “human nature” (which of course could not be changed!) instead of indicting politically sanctioned workplace oppression and inequality. Thus, the NY Times which first broke the story published an essay a month later entitled “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido ”. The author, one Steven Marche, apparently blind to the power and impunity of a self-protective male establishment, accused “the nature of men in general” and concluded that “the problem at the heart of all this [is] the often ugly and dangerous nature of the male libido.”
-Thus the Times, considered the mouthpiece of U.S. liberalism was unwittingly spouting the same party line as the Saudi Arabian Wahhabist Immams, who also used that “dangerous male libido” as a pretext to lock up all Moslem women in the home and “protect” them by denying them civil rights and basic freedoms.
-==== Now ====
-By now 22nd century are naturally asking: Was this about sex? Or about power? Young people today are growing up free to explore and express your individual sexuality at your own pace. You live in a world where cooperation has replaced domination, and you understand that sex is about caring and sharing, about pleasure, adventure and love. So you ask yourselves: what is is “sexy” about a powerful male dominating, humiliating and violating his helpless female subordonates? From your 22nd century viewpoint, it seems obvious that the male predation behavior of earlier historic times had more to do with power than with pleasure, with domination than with sex, with class society than with human nature.
-Historically, male-dominated societies, priestly, royal or capitalist, had from earliest times proclaimed their rule to be ordained by the Gods, or more recently as “natural,” but this was propaganda. Modern archeologists and anthropologists have supplied ample evidence of the existance of stable matriarchical and matrilineal societies both in ancient history and among groups that remained isolated from Western influence well into the 20th century. Indeed, it was Morgan’s 19th century study of the Iroquois that inspired Friedrich Engels to conclude in The Origins of Private Property, the Family and the State (1884) that the rise of male dominance within previously egalitarian clans and the transformation of cattle, women and children into the personal property of the dominant male was the basis of all future class societies.
-Under European feudalism, the lords of the manor gave themselves the “right” to compel the sexual services of the young women who worked and lived in their domains. In the U.S., whippings, beatings and the fear of having their children sold down the river, compelled enslaved African-American women to submit to their masters. The same oppression prevailed under capitalism, where bosses routinely expected female workers to submit to their lusts if they wanted to keep their jobs. In addition, despite legal “equality” under capitalism women were made to do most of the work, both as wage earners, as informal workers and as unpaid home-makers, cooks, child-care and elder-care providers.
-No wonder why the elite men who ran those primative societies united to keep women “in their place” and closed ranks against them. No wonder why many subordinate men, themselves exploited and humiliated in the workplace, were tempted to oppress and exploit the women this male culture placed under their power. And no wonder so many guilty men in those dark times unconsciously hated women, feared their power, and used violence to humiliate and subdue them.
-Today in 2117 in our egalitarian society where women no longer fear male violence, where women are free to openly express their own libido and where social labor is cooperative and mostly voluntary, the question of “human nature” and the allegedly “uncontrollable” male libido” seem curiously antiquated.
 === The Women’s Day Uprising, by Richard Greeman ===
@@ Line 153: / Line 137: @@
 Moreover, women no longer were imprisoned by their childcaring tasks. Those who did not want to abandon their intellectual or artistic or professional interests, and yet wanted to experience the joy of maternity, could rely on the community network of childcaring. On the other hand, those women who enjoyed being with kids could devote themselves full-time to raising of children. Similarly, old people never experienced lonliless as they could alwasy spend time in childcaring centers that were staffed by  volunteers or by parents and family members on a rotating basis. As the values continued to change, men started taking on more and more responsibilities in child caring and proved to have great fathering skills. Once the society stopped perpetuating the historically conditoned -but made to seem natural - division of labor, everyone could choose to engage with childcare to the degree they desire.
-Comments:
+==== Then ====
+Faced with an entrenched social evil, the media consensus in 2017 America was to indict “human nature” (which of course could not be changed!) instead of indicting politically sanctioned workplace oppression and inequality. Thus, the NY Times which first broke the story published an essay a month later entitled “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido ”. The author, one Steven Marche, apparently blind to the power and impunity of a self-protective male establishment, accused “the nature of men in general” and concluded that “the problem at the heart of all this [is] the often ugly and dangerous nature of the male libido.”
+Thus the Times, considered the mouthpiece of U.S. liberalism was unwittingly spouting the same party line as the Saudi Arabian Wahhabist Immams, who also used that “dangerous male libido” as a pretext to lock up all Moslem women in the home and “protect” them by denying them civil rights and basic freedoms.
+=== Resistance to feminism, by Lola Girerd ===
+For successful societal change, for the improvement of the conditions of living of a disadvantaged group, throughout history, one could not wait for the sudden good heart of the oligarchs. Rights had to be taken. One individual alone could hardly achieve this goal, people had to get together, not to beg, but to take their due.
+The same goes for the rights of women. For a long time, women couldn’t vote, they were dependent on their husbands on many aspects of their lives. Feminist movements fought and won the vote, the financial independence in Western countries.
+Yet, gender equality wasn’t the norm in the early 21st century. Sexism hadn’t been eradicated. Paradoxically, many women in the Western world hold feminist attitudes, but few engaged in collective action in the name of women. Why that paradox, you may be wondering.
+It’s important to note that women need to identify as feminists in order to actively engage in collective action for other women. Sadly, that was difficult for many. Why? We can distinguish two main reasons inherent at that time. First, because the feminist identity was broadly stigmatized, which lead some women to avoid it simply because they didn’t want to be associated with the negative stereotypes associated with it.
+The weight of neoliberalism helps to explain another barrier to this identification. The ideologies associated with neoliberalism, such as meritocracy, free choice and personal responsibility lead women to hold feminist attitudes, such the belief in the need for equality in pay between men and women, while rejecting the perception of systematic bias in society. Believing in those ideologies is believing that collectivism hinders self-determination and that everyone is personally responsible for their successes or failures. It is putting individual interests before the interest of women in general. Those women didn’t engage in collective action because it would have meant challenging the status quo, in which they believed.
+For those reasons and some others, collective action in the name of women’s rights was not only seen as unnecessary, but even as a threat. This rendered progress difficult.
+==== Now ====
+By now 22nd century are naturally asking: Was this about sex? Or about power? Young people today are growing up free to explore and express your individual sexuality at your own pace. You live in a world where cooperation has replaced domination, and you understand that sex is about caring and sharing, about pleasure, adventure and love. So you ask yourselves: what is is “sexy” about a powerful male dominating, humiliating and violating his helpless female subordonates? From your 22nd century viewpoint, it seems obvious that the male predation behavior of earlier historic times had more to do with power than with pleasure, with domination than with sex, with class society than with human nature.
+Historically, male-dominated societies, priestly, royal or capitalist, had from earliest times proclaimed their rule to be ordained by the Gods, or more recently as “natural,” but this was propaganda. Modern archeologists and anthropologists have supplied ample evidence of the existance of stable matriarchical and matrilineal societies both in ancient history and among groups that remained isolated from Western influence well into the 20th century. Indeed, it was Morgan’s 19th century study of the Iroquois that inspired Friedrich Engels to conclude in The Origins of Private Property, the Family and the State (1884) that the rise of male dominance within previously egalitarian clans and the transformation of cattle, women and children into the personal property of the dominant male was the basis of all future class societies.
+Under European feudalism, the lords of the manor gave themselves the “right” to compel the sexual services of the young women who worked and lived in their domains. In the U.S., whippings, beatings and the fear of having their children sold down the river, compelled enslaved African-American women to submit to their masters. The same oppression prevailed under capitalism, where bosses routinely expected female workers to submit to their lusts if they wanted to keep their jobs. In addition, despite legal “equality” under capitalism women were made to do most of the work, both as wage earners, as informal workers and as unpaid home-makers, cooks, child-care and elder-care providers.
+No wonder why the elite men who ran those primative societies united to keep women “in their place” and closed ranks against them. No wonder why many subordinate men, themselves exploited and humiliated in the workplace, were tempted to oppress and exploit the women this male culture placed under their power. And no wonder so many guilty men in those dark times unconsciously hated women, feared their power, and used violence to humiliate and subdue them.
+Today in 2117 in our egalitarian society where women no longer fear male violence, where women are free to openly express their own libido and where social labor is cooperative and mostly voluntary, the question of “human nature” and the allegedly “uncontrollable” male libido” seem curiously antiquated.
+==== Comments ====
 Barry: non traditional family - made me think tht multi national corporations, global capitalism is fine with non traditional families, it seems. i was thinking about curious ways that revolution and status quo interact with each other depending on which facet of each you look at.
@@ Line 172: / Line 186: @@
 R: in my piece Out Your Pig is basically a movement of labor, that takes place mainly in workplace. As Lola pointed out, in France most women would absolutely refuse to identify themselves as feminists. Macron is tightening restrictions to prevent women to fight against harassment in jobs. instead of individual women bringing lawsuits, they should organize collectively.
-=== Then, part 2 ===
-=== Resistance to feminism, by Lola Girerd ===
-== Then ==
-For successful societal change, for the improvement of the conditions of living of a disadvantaged group, throughout history, one could not wait for the sudden good heart of the oligarchs. Rights had to be taken. One individual alone could hardly achieve this goal, people had to get together, not to beg, but to take their due.
-The same goes for the rights of women. For a long time, women couldn’t vote, they were dependent on their husbands on many aspects of their lives. Feminist movements fought and won the vote, the financial independence in Western countries.
-Yet, gender equality wasn’t the norm in the early 21st century. Sexism hadn’t been eradicated. Paradoxically, many women in the Western world hold feminist attitudes, but few engaged in collective action in the name of women. Why that paradox, you may be wondering.
-It’s important to note that women need to identify as feminists in order to actively engage in collective action for other women. Sadly, that was difficult for many. Why? We can distinguish two main reasons inherent at that time. First, because the feminist identity was broadly stigmatized, which lead some women to avoid it simply because they didn’t want to be associated with the negative stereotypes associated with it.
-The weight of neoliberalism helps to explain another barrier to this identification. The ideologies associated with neoliberalism, such as meritocracy, free choice and personal responsibility lead women to hold feminist attitudes, such the belief in the need for equality in pay between men and women, while rejecting the perception of systematic bias in society. Believing in those ideologies is believing that collectivism hinders self-determination and that everyone is personally responsible for their successes or failures. It is putting individual interests before the interest of women in general. Those women didn’t engage in collective action because it would have meant challenging the status quo, in which they believed.
-For those reasons and some others, collective action in the name of women’s rights was not only seen as unnecessary, but even as a threat. This rendered progress difficult.
-== Now ==
 Lola: obviously, equality of wages, division of labor/roles, representation. Indirect equalities: human relationships. How we think of "men" and "women" and their qualities. We now see them as human qualities that anyone can have.

Future Historians

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools