|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The Christian concept of Personhood is in opposition to Aristotle's taxonomical concept of a human being though. Humanity as the rational animal is not the same concept as the irreducible divinity of the person.
|
this is a fascinating question but I have no clue the archaeology of it, speaking more rigorously. I think the idea of an androgynous soul might just be original to christianity, but wtf do I know
(and this is a detour for the thread even by my standards. Super interesting though)
|
In one of the graduate courses I participated in, one of duties was to provide peer criticism on political policy papers for other students. One girl made the ludicrously absurd statement that the concept of Human Rights has its roots in Greek thought. The Greeks had no notion of a body of abstract rights which extended to all of humanity.
|
Okay guys, at this point I think the thread is beginning to get de-railed a little bit. The topics that you guys are discussing are essentially inaccessible to people unfamiliar with the complex (and oftentimes appearing to lack actual content) language of your field, coupled with the fact that they are not even directly related to American politics.
I feel like if you guys want to have in-depth discussions about continental philosophy and your graduate studies, it's time to take it to private messages or other threads.
|
screw you we're using baby words
|
On December 24 2013 13:07 BallinWitStalin wrote:
Okay guys, at this point I think the thread is beginning to get de-railed a little bit. The topics that you guys are discussing are essentially inaccessible to people unfamiliar with the complex (and oftentimes appearing to lack actual content) language of your field, coupled with the fact that they are not even directly related to American politics.
I feel like if you guys want to have in-depth discussions about continental philosophy and your graduate studies, it's time to take it to private messages or other threads.
Agreed! Can we get back into politics?
|
Another one of Chris Christie's explanations for the growing scandal over lane closures on the George Washington Bridge that led to days of gridlock in Fort Lee, N.J., in September is being questioned by other local officials.
In a press conference last Thursday, Christie claimed Fort Lee officials gave "no notification" about the traffic jams to Pat Foye, the executive director of Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the bridge. Assemblyman John Wisnieswki (D), who is chairman of New Jersey Assembly Transportation Committee, which is investigating the incident, told TPM Monday that Christie's claim was "false."
"The governor's claim that Fort Lee did not try to contact them is false and the records reflect that," said Wisnieswki, who has been examining correspondence subpoenaed from multiple Port Authority officials.
Some Democrats have alleged the lanes were closed because Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid.
One record that seems to call Christie's claim into question is a letter published by the Wall Street Journal in October. In that letter, which was dated Sept. 12, while the lane closures were still in effect, Sokolich alerts one og Christie's top appointees at Port Authority, Bill Baroni, to the traffic issues. In addition to contacting Baroni, Sokolich also wrote that Fort Lee officials had made "multiple inquiries" to Port Authority.
Source
|
this IS politics. Politics is everything and everything is politics. If you limit 'politics' to the tv politics clown circus that is american 'democracy' then the Enemy has already won. We are discussing issues of deep political consequence. If you kids don't like it, turn on your television or post something that will accomplish a change of topic rather than just begging for it. Bah
|
On December 24 2013 13:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Another one of Chris Christie's explanations for the growing scandal over lane closures on the George Washington Bridge that led to days of gridlock in Fort Lee, N.J., in September is being questioned by other local officials.
In a press conference last Thursday, Christie claimed Fort Lee officials gave "no notification" about the traffic jams to Pat Foye, the executive director of Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the bridge. Assemblyman John Wisnieswki (D), who is chairman of New Jersey Assembly Transportation Committee, which is investigating the incident, told TPM Monday that Christie's claim was "false."
"The governor's claim that Fort Lee did not try to contact them is false and the records reflect that," said Wisnieswki, who has been examining correspondence subpoenaed from multiple Port Authority officials.
Some Democrats have alleged the lanes were closed because Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid.
One record that seems to call Christie's claim into question is a letter published by the Wall Street Journal in October. In that letter, which was dated Sept. 12, while the lane closures were still in effect, Sokolich alerts one og Christie's top appointees at Port Authority, Bill Baroni, to the traffic issues. In addition to contacting Baroni, Sokolich also wrote that Fort Lee officials had made "multiple inquiries" to Port Authority. Source
Can't say I've been a Christie fan anyhow...
|
On December 24 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
this IS politics. Politics is everything and everything is politics. If you limit 'politics' to the tv politics clown circus that is american 'democracy' then the Enemy has already won. We are discussing issues of deep political consequence. If you kids don't like it, turn on your television or post something that will accomplish a change of topic rather than just begging for it. Bah
Aw, woe is you.
Anyways, Al-Qaeda has apologized for attacking a hospital in Sanaa, Yemen. Pretty rare for Al-Qaeda to apologize rather than take credit.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/22/world/meast/yemen-al-qaeda-apology/
"We confess to this mistake and fault. We offer our apologies and condolences to the families of the victims," Raimi said in the video, which was published by al Qaeda media outlet Al-Malahim. "We did not want your lost ones; we did not target them on purpose. This is not of our religion or our morals."
It's unusual to see "such a direct, fast, public apology" from al Qaeda, CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen said.
|
On December 24 2013 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 09:26 IgnE wrote:On December 24 2013 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 08:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 24 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:Paglia's argument was that women should be grateful to men for creating the world they live in. That was the argument being made. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due! Men created it all, women were not the authors. Modern women should be grateful that men created it. You agreed with me that that argument was indecent, you just don't seem to have read the quote I was referring to because it makes exactly that argument. Well yes women should be grateful that men built the "vast production and distribution network." The same way men should be grateful that women wiped their asses and taught them to read and kissed their ouchies and all that. Obviously to some people men get more credit for doing that stuff than women do for doing that other stuff but I don't see where one is more important than the other. You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. In light of the suppression of women in professional, "world-changing" work to this day in all but a handful of countries, I think it's foolish (you're not doing it, I'm speaking in general) to view history in terms of "men and women" (something that is already foolish). It should be viewed as in terms of people overall. The conditions were there for men, and not for women. Women should not be seen as some different entity. Humans are humans. Look at it in terms of the history of civilizations. The conditions were there, for example, for western/central European countries (and somehow Russia recovered as they always do from catastrophe) to lead the way in human technological progress, when the Mongols destroyed the greatest, most advanced, and richest civilizations in the world, from the Chinese dynasties in the east to much of the Middle East and Kievan Rus in the west, it allowed western/central Europe to proceed without competition, unsurprisingly drawing lots of knowledge and inspiration from the advanced Islamic world which had fallen into decay with the Mongol conquests. Without the Mongols, among many other things, the world would be a lot different. Now should "lesser nations" thank and kiss ass to the "greater nations" (who are also exploiting them lol) for this progress that is the result of the "greater nations" not getting assfucked to oblivion like many "lesser nations" were in the past? From your perspective, maybe, but it's simply very narrow to look at an oppressed group and tell them "You should thank us for doing things because there were conditions in play that never allowed you to do those things". This is why I don't look down on countries on the basis that they don't contribute to overall human progress like developed, advanced nations do, since the conditions are not there for them to be able to do so, just as you can't look down on women for not contributing much in the span of human history, since the conditions were not and still aren't there. To expect them to be thankful for the achievements of others that they couldn't contribute to because they were oppressed, is like expecting black slaves back in the day to be thankful that their slave owners provided food and shelter and clothing for them despite being treated worse than the mules and other animals they worked with. It's kinda twisted to be honest. I understand your view comes from an optimistic outlook on the matter when you say that women should be grateful to men. But I think it should be a matter of humans congratulating humans, instead of women congratulating men. I realize that's kind of a radical view in most of the world, but to see humans and a sub-section of humans (whether a country, gender, etc.) and their ability to make progress is based on the conditions at hand, rather than the implication that women wouldn't have been able to, is kind of my take on things. We agree wholly. I'm arguing against Paglia, you're arguing against Paglia too. You just misread my post. It's remarkable to me that we can go through five pages of discussion about a narrow set of comments from Paglia and we are still discussing quotes out of context and with no sense of nuance gained from the previous discussion. The division of labor is a requirement of capitalism. Women took on (or had imposed on them) the reproductive work of feeding, cleaning, nurturing, and supporting alienated labor, a predominantly male population forced into a one-dimensional role that sells its labor power in return for the minimum necessary wages required to perform the reproductive work of living for themselves and their family. Women were forced into this role because they had wombs required for child-bearing to grow the labor force in the early days of capitalism, whereas men are more expendable. It doesn't matter if a sizable percentage of men are chewed up by the conditions of wage slavery before they can have children. When the productive work is alienated from the laborer, that is, the labor sells his labor power as such, rather than the sensual production of his labor, and is given a wage in exchange for that power in order to profit capital, the laborer is reduced to a one-sided entity: "factory worker," "office worker," etc. The construction of one-sided "identities" like "woman," "construction worker," "black man" is the result of a totalizing capitalist reduction of human beings from persons who perform and enjoy the fruits of their productive labor as well as freely engage in reproductive work, like eating, sleeping, nurturing, playing, and learning. Being a "woman" means producing and reproducing a set of social relations of labor, or the business of living life. So when Paglia says men have built the world we live in she is right. And when it is pointed out that women have largely performed the reproductive labor of society by taking care of men and children while the men labored it is accurate. To come back and say. "Well women didn't choose that," is to miss the point that men didn't choose wage slavery either. Patriachy is a product of capitalist labor relations. (typed on my phone so whatever) What a bunch of gobbledygook.
I guess you aren't familiar with constructed identities because you economics and business people believe in rational actors and prefer universal natural categories.
|
On December 24 2013 13:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 24 2013 09:26 IgnE wrote:On December 24 2013 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 08:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 24 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:Paglia's argument was that women should be grateful to men for creating the world they live in. That was the argument being made. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due! Men created it all, women were not the authors. Modern women should be grateful that men created it. You agreed with me that that argument was indecent, you just don't seem to have read the quote I was referring to because it makes exactly that argument. Well yes women should be grateful that men built the "vast production and distribution network." The same way men should be grateful that women wiped their asses and taught them to read and kissed their ouchies and all that. Obviously to some people men get more credit for doing that stuff than women do for doing that other stuff but I don't see where one is more important than the other. You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. In light of the suppression of women in professional, "world-changing" work to this day in all but a handful of countries, I think it's foolish (you're not doing it, I'm speaking in general) to view history in terms of "men and women" (something that is already foolish). It should be viewed as in terms of people overall. The conditions were there for men, and not for women. Women should not be seen as some different entity. Humans are humans. Look at it in terms of the history of civilizations. The conditions were there, for example, for western/central European countries (and somehow Russia recovered as they always do from catastrophe) to lead the way in human technological progress, when the Mongols destroyed the greatest, most advanced, and richest civilizations in the world, from the Chinese dynasties in the east to much of the Middle East and Kievan Rus in the west, it allowed western/central Europe to proceed without competition, unsurprisingly drawing lots of knowledge and inspiration from the advanced Islamic world which had fallen into decay with the Mongol conquests. Without the Mongols, among many other things, the world would be a lot different. Now should "lesser nations" thank and kiss ass to the "greater nations" (who are also exploiting them lol) for this progress that is the result of the "greater nations" not getting assfucked to oblivion like many "lesser nations" were in the past? From your perspective, maybe, but it's simply very narrow to look at an oppressed group and tell them "You should thank us for doing things because there were conditions in play that never allowed you to do those things". This is why I don't look down on countries on the basis that they don't contribute to overall human progress like developed, advanced nations do, since the conditions are not there for them to be able to do so, just as you can't look down on women for not contributing much in the span of human history, since the conditions were not and still aren't there. To expect them to be thankful for the achievements of others that they couldn't contribute to because they were oppressed, is like expecting black slaves back in the day to be thankful that their slave owners provided food and shelter and clothing for them despite being treated worse than the mules and other animals they worked with. It's kinda twisted to be honest. I understand your view comes from an optimistic outlook on the matter when you say that women should be grateful to men. But I think it should be a matter of humans congratulating humans, instead of women congratulating men. I realize that's kind of a radical view in most of the world, but to see humans and a sub-section of humans (whether a country, gender, etc.) and their ability to make progress is based on the conditions at hand, rather than the implication that women wouldn't have been able to, is kind of my take on things. We agree wholly. I'm arguing against Paglia, you're arguing against Paglia too. You just misread my post. It's remarkable to me that we can go through five pages of discussion about a narrow set of comments from Paglia and we are still discussing quotes out of context and with no sense of nuance gained from the previous discussion. The division of labor is a requirement of capitalism. Women took on (or had imposed on them) the reproductive work of feeding, cleaning, nurturing, and supporting alienated labor, a predominantly male population forced into a one-dimensional role that sells its labor power in return for the minimum necessary wages required to perform the reproductive work of living for themselves and their family. Women were forced into this role because they had wombs required for child-bearing to grow the labor force in the early days of capitalism, whereas men are more expendable. It doesn't matter if a sizable percentage of men are chewed up by the conditions of wage slavery before they can have children. When the productive work is alienated from the laborer, that is, the labor sells his labor power as such, rather than the sensual production of his labor, and is given a wage in exchange for that power in order to profit capital, the laborer is reduced to a one-sided entity: "factory worker," "office worker," etc. The construction of one-sided "identities" like "woman," "construction worker," "black man" is the result of a totalizing capitalist reduction of human beings from persons who perform and enjoy the fruits of their productive labor as well as freely engage in reproductive work, like eating, sleeping, nurturing, playing, and learning. Being a "woman" means producing and reproducing a set of social relations of labor, or the business of living life. So when Paglia says men have built the world we live in she is right. And when it is pointed out that women have largely performed the reproductive labor of society by taking care of men and children while the men labored it is accurate. To come back and say. "Well women didn't choose that," is to miss the point that men didn't choose wage slavery either. Patriachy is a product of capitalist labor relations. (typed on my phone so whatever) What a bunch of gobbledygook. I guess you aren't familiar with constructed identities because you economics and business people believe in rational actors and prefer universal natural categories.
Nah, I've worked in retail 
Edit: and what are you refuting with that line anyways? A 100% dogmatic belief in the freshwater vs saltwater debate? Did you miss the latest Nobel in economics award (Schiller and Fama (and that other guy))?
Regardless, I went to 'busyness' school where we don't stick to odd abstractions and constant paradigms anyhow.
|
The discussion of what a person is directly follows into the personhood debate and thus is more then perfectly on topic for us politics.
|
On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 24 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:Paglia's argument was that women should be grateful to men for creating the world they live in. That was the argument being made. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due! Men created it all, women were not the authors. Modern women should be grateful that men created it. You agreed with me that that argument was indecent, you just don't seem to have read the quote I was referring to because it makes exactly that argument. Well yes women should be grateful that men built the "vast production and distribution network." The same way men should be grateful that women wiped their asses and taught them to read and kissed their ouchies and all that. Obviously to some people men get more credit for doing that stuff than women do for doing that other stuff but I don't see where one is more important than the other. You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female.
Well historically it is unlikely that women were "forced" by men into the domestic sphere because men just felt superior and decided to go for it, the shift from mother earth to father god is probably more because civilization gave us the ability to conduct seriously destructive warfare than anything else. If women didn't take a much larger share of domestic work so the men could be hard physical laborers-soldiers almost exclusively the village was going to get wiped out. But men took the ball and ran with it so that is just an aside.
What you're saying is that your hypothetical world should be held just as real as the real world. Well it isn't. And the whole damn thing is ridiculous anyway. People deserve credit for what they did. People deserve castigation for what they did. All this about men oppressed women so whatever it's useful if you like to argue but it doesn't seem to have helped keep the engine running lately the way it used to. Men did this bad thing or this good thing at some point it is just a verbal rat race. Insisting that women shouldn't feel grateful to men for what they did to build civilization isn't going to make the genders more equal. Insisting men should feel more grateful to women will because the message at least what people perceive is that men need to be more positive towards women. That message does not apparently go both ways. Maybe things would be better if it did.
I get it perfectly I just add little weight to it because to me it has little practical value and also I was educated in the 1990s so I was indoctrinated in post-identity ideology. Shit don't matter to me, men aren't better than women, Chinese aren't better than Japanese, whatever. If you were like me you wouldn't be bitching about this particular faceless group-identity chunk of humanity getting the shaft in the past just because people have to agree with you. You'd be bitching about it still happening now just a little bit more often maybe. I don't bitch about it as a particular theme because there are lots of very smart, very motivated, and very well-funded people out there making a very good living bitching about it. And I don't like most of them so that is an affiliation I can deal with avoiding. I can only be indignant about so many things and people being stupid about gay people is starting to get me lately. So some dust-up over feminism, kinda meh.
But the social aspect of the conversation is very interesting. All males or overwhelmingly males and no surprise it is a contest for dominance. Sam is right you know about the patriarchy its domination is very deep look at how it has dominated the social development of feminism as an ideology and a movement. This conversation is incredibly patriarchal. Even with all or overwhelmingly males participating the process and results would not be much different if it was all female. That might be true even if the patriarchy was shattered, and probably is. And if that isn't a statement as to the equality of the sexes I don't know what would be.
|
On December 24 2013 14:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 13:55 IgnE wrote:On December 24 2013 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 24 2013 09:26 IgnE wrote:On December 24 2013 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 08:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On December 24 2013 07:50 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2013 07:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 24 2013 04:13 KwarK wrote:Paglia's argument was that women should be grateful to men for creating the world they live in. That was the argument being made. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due! Men created it all, women were not the authors. Modern women should be grateful that men created it. You agreed with me that that argument was indecent, you just don't seem to have read the quote I was referring to because it makes exactly that argument. Well yes women should be grateful that men built the "vast production and distribution network." The same way men should be grateful that women wiped their asses and taught them to read and kissed their ouchies and all that. Obviously to some people men get more credit for doing that stuff than women do for doing that other stuff but I don't see where one is more important than the other. You're not getting it. Men and women didn't collectively get together and share out tasks then appreciate each other for doing a good job, men systematically oppressed women, denied them power and forced them into the domestic sphere. Women shouldn't get credit for selflessly choosing to be domestic sphere because they didn't, they were forced there. Likewise men shouldn't get credit for taking all the power, making all the decisions and doing all the politics/finance/industry while women didn't do any of it because the reason women didn't do any of it is because they weren't allowed to. If we agree on a division of labour and then someone does their job well then you recognise that and say "nice job". If someone forces you not to do the job, insists they do it and then monopolises the rewards of the job while forcing you to do a shitty job, they're not doing you any favours. Unless you're suggesting that had women been able to enter politics human progress wouldn't have happened I don't see any reason women should be grateful for what men did during their oppression. The same things still would have happened, it's just some of the hands making history would have been female. In light of the suppression of women in professional, "world-changing" work to this day in all but a handful of countries, I think it's foolish (you're not doing it, I'm speaking in general) to view history in terms of "men and women" (something that is already foolish). It should be viewed as in terms of people overall. The conditions were there for men, and not for women. Women should not be seen as some different entity. Humans are humans. Look at it in terms of the history of civilizations. The conditions were there, for example, for western/central European countries (and somehow Russia recovered as they always do from catastrophe) to lead the way in human technological progress, when the Mongols destroyed the greatest, most advanced, and richest civilizations in the world, from the Chinese dynasties in the east to much of the Middle East and Kievan Rus in the west, it allowed western/central Europe to proceed without competition, unsurprisingly drawing lots of knowledge and inspiration from the advanced Islamic world which had fallen into decay with the Mongol conquests. Without the Mongols, among many other things, the world would be a lot different. Now should "lesser nations" thank and kiss ass to the "greater nations" (who are also exploiting them lol) for this progress that is the result of the "greater nations" not getting assfucked to oblivion like many "lesser nations" were in the past? From your perspective, maybe, but it's simply very narrow to look at an oppressed group and tell them "You should thank us for doing things because there were conditions in play that never allowed you to do those things". This is why I don't look down on countries on the basis that they don't contribute to overall human progress like developed, advanced nations do, since the conditions are not there for them to be able to do so, just as you can't look down on women for not contributing much in the span of human history, since the conditions were not and still aren't there. To expect them to be thankful for the achievements of others that they couldn't contribute to because they were oppressed, is like expecting black slaves back in the day to be thankful that their slave owners provided food and shelter and clothing for them despite being treated worse than the mules and other animals they worked with. It's kinda twisted to be honest. I understand your view comes from an optimistic outlook on the matter when you say that women should be grateful to men. But I think it should be a matter of humans congratulating humans, instead of women congratulating men. I realize that's kind of a radical view in most of the world, but to see humans and a sub-section of humans (whether a country, gender, etc.) and their ability to make progress is based on the conditions at hand, rather than the implication that women wouldn't have been able to, is kind of my take on things. We agree wholly. I'm arguing against Paglia, you're arguing against Paglia too. You just misread my post. It's remarkable to me that we can go through five pages of discussion about a narrow set of comments from Paglia and we are still discussing quotes out of context and with no sense of nuance gained from the previous discussion. The division of labor is a requirement of capitalism. Women took on (or had imposed on them) the reproductive work of feeding, cleaning, nurturing, and supporting alienated labor, a predominantly male population forced into a one-dimensional role that sells its labor power in return for the minimum necessary wages required to perform the reproductive work of living for themselves and their family. Women were forced into this role because they had wombs required for child-bearing to grow the labor force in the early days of capitalism, whereas men are more expendable. It doesn't matter if a sizable percentage of men are chewed up by the conditions of wage slavery before they can have children. When the productive work is alienated from the laborer, that is, the labor sells his labor power as such, rather than the sensual production of his labor, and is given a wage in exchange for that power in order to profit capital, the laborer is reduced to a one-sided entity: "factory worker," "office worker," etc. The construction of one-sided "identities" like "woman," "construction worker," "black man" is the result of a totalizing capitalist reduction of human beings from persons who perform and enjoy the fruits of their productive labor as well as freely engage in reproductive work, like eating, sleeping, nurturing, playing, and learning. Being a "woman" means producing and reproducing a set of social relations of labor, or the business of living life. So when Paglia says men have built the world we live in she is right. And when it is pointed out that women have largely performed the reproductive labor of society by taking care of men and children while the men labored it is accurate. To come back and say. "Well women didn't choose that," is to miss the point that men didn't choose wage slavery either. Patriachy is a product of capitalist labor relations. (typed on my phone so whatever) What a bunch of gobbledygook. I guess you aren't familiar with constructed identities because you economics and business people believe in rational actors and prefer universal natural categories. Nah, I've worked in retail Edit: and what are you refuting with that line anyways? A 100% dogmatic belief in the freshwater vs saltwater debate? Did you miss the latest Nobel in economics award (Schiller and Fama (and that other guy))? Regardless, I went to 'busyness' school where we don't stick to odd abstractions and constant paradigms anyhow.
No the posts quoted including mine were only tangentially related to macroeconomics and not related to monetary policy. I was responding to your comment that you think the feminization of reproductive labor under capitalism which forces women into a socially constructed box of womanhood is gobbeldygook (or alternatively racially relegated forms of labor). My comments were meant to imply that you don't seriously consider the construction of identity because you fetishize a liberal conception of theindividual whose primary freedom is access to a free market (and the attendant freedom to assume an identity that totalizes a behavior or social relation).
|
On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there?
Some cultures are thoroughly patriarchical, I am not disputing that, and sepcifically meant contemporary western society. I do not oppose the anthropological concept of patriarchy that describes certain social structures. I am opposing the feminist notion of patriarchy, which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society.
I am not saying that gender issues are solved, but only that patriarchy theory does not help us solve anything.
|
On December 24 2013 13:55 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
this IS politics. Politics is everything and everything is politics. If you limit 'politics' to the tv politics clown circus that is american 'democracy' then the Enemy has already won. We are discussing issues of deep political consequence. If you kids don't like it, turn on your television or post something that will accomplish a change of topic rather than just begging for it. Bah Aw, woe is you. Anyways, Al-Qaeda has apologized for attacking a hospital in Sanaa, Yemen. Pretty rare for Al-Qaeda to apologize rather than take credit. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/22/world/meast/yemen-al-qaeda-apology/Show nested quote +"We confess to this mistake and fault. We offer our apologies and condolences to the families of the victims," Raimi said in the video, which was published by al Qaeda media outlet Al-Malahim. "We did not want your lost ones; we did not target them on purpose. This is not of our religion or our morals."
It's unusual to see "such a direct, fast, public apology" from al Qaeda, CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen said.
This is at best a PR move or a sarcastic apology basically meaning "sorry we're not sorry", most likely the former as they are losing influence in Yemen. I wouldn't take them too seriously.
|
On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate.
|
On December 24 2013 13:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 13:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Another one of Chris Christie's explanations for the growing scandal over lane closures on the George Washington Bridge that led to days of gridlock in Fort Lee, N.J., in September is being questioned by other local officials.
In a press conference last Thursday, Christie claimed Fort Lee officials gave "no notification" about the traffic jams to Pat Foye, the executive director of Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the bridge. Assemblyman John Wisnieswki (D), who is chairman of New Jersey Assembly Transportation Committee, which is investigating the incident, told TPM Monday that Christie's claim was "false."
"The governor's claim that Fort Lee did not try to contact them is false and the records reflect that," said Wisnieswki, who has been examining correspondence subpoenaed from multiple Port Authority officials.
Some Democrats have alleged the lanes were closed because Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid.
One record that seems to call Christie's claim into question is a letter published by the Wall Street Journal in October. In that letter, which was dated Sept. 12, while the lane closures were still in effect, Sokolich alerts one og Christie's top appointees at Port Authority, Bill Baroni, to the traffic issues. In addition to contacting Baroni, Sokolich also wrote that Fort Lee officials had made "multiple inquiries" to Port Authority. Source Can't say I've been a Christie fan anyhow...
The first ominous sign was his refusal to side with other Republican governors in rejecting Obamacare (I'm trying to remember, it's been so long ... either a petition or a lawsuit with several governors in it). He hasn't reversed course on that yet. He will not be that strong conservative in the 2016 primaries.
I guess there's also some shameless fibbing going on with this issue. As always, politicians trying to tell the most advantageous lies they think they can get away with.
|
On December 24 2013 20:40 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 19:11 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 09:32 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On December 24 2013 08:58 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:53 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:51 Crushinator wrote:On December 24 2013 08:49 sam!zdat wrote:On December 24 2013 08:16 Crushinator wrote:
It is nice to have a vague and highly abstract concept like patriarchy to blame for everything. so what you should try to do is understand what it is and how it functions, to make it less vague. it's true that what most feminists talk about when they talk about the "patriarchy" is vague and useless, but it's also true that there actually is a patriarchy and that our entire social fabric is shot through with its insidious tentacles. I don't think anything exist in contemporary society that is worthy of he name patriarchy. then you are sadly mistaken. most likely, you just don't have any properly theoretical conception of what is meant by the term. the patriarchy is just part of our ideology. it is "pouvoir" in the foucauldian sense, it is not some concrete instutition which is the sort of stupid, obvious thing you look for and don't find, it is much more subtle than that. It absolutely exists. Don't let the voguish stupidity of the way most people use the term discount the idea itself. Yeah that is just a bunch of bullshit to me, sorry. If you don't believe the patriarchy exists, consider the examples shown in the rural areas of India, and under Taliban influenced areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These countries are rife with 14 year olds being sold into marriage, girls schools being closed, straight up gender segregation, and regular terrorism for failing to comply with gender norms. I have not listed all of the systemic legal and cultural rules imposed on women. There are many more there. Can you not grok this concept? When you think of those examples, does a pattern of gender roles not emerge? Men make the rules. Men imposed the rules. And men do this to maintain control over women. Do you not see what is going on there? , which pretty much holds that even though women have equal rights in every way, are still somehow being opressed by some abstraction. What I am disputing is that patriarchy is a useful concept to describe any phenomenon in contemporary society. I would be curious to hear your explanation why despite being legally equal women seem to be underrepresented in a number of elite professions and why their incomes -- even for the same level of education -- stagnate.
In terms of economics it would be preposterous to suggest that equally qualified workers would recieve different wages solely based on their gender. Businesses that choose to employ overpaid men in favor of underpaid women would go out of business in favor of businesses employing only the equally qualified cheap women. The greater demand for the cheap women would create an upwards pressure on wages for women and a downward pressure on the wages of men, resulting in equal pay in equilibirum.
The explanation must lie in elsewhere, discrimination can't account for differences in wages. One obvious factor would be the fact that the cost of pregnancy and child rearing responsibility disproportionately lies with female workers, and employers pay part of this cost through maternity leave, decreased productivity and lack of flexibility. The fact that women get pregnant and men don't, and women are most often the primary care giver is atleast in part founded in biology, and only a limited number of policy options are available to correct this difference. For example forcing employers to give as much paternity leave as maternity leave, like in some scandinavian countries. Ecouraging fathers to take more of the child rearing responsibilities is a more difficult problem, and I feel that complete parity can never be achieved, though there certainly has been a move towards greater participation by fathers.
For elite professions the disparity can be explained in terms of different inherent preferences and perhaps even abillity. Women on average have a greater preference to work with people, wheras men more often than women prefer to work with things. Furthermore, to achieve the very top of any profession requires something of a single minded preoccupation that one might call an obsession, and I think men are more prone to develop that, whereas women's preoccupaitons might on average be more varied. To support this assertion I offer the fact that autism spectrum syndromes, partly characterized by obsessions for certain patterns, are much more prevalent in men, and a popular explanation for this is the ''male brain hypothesis". Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I believe this can atleast offer some insight into the differences between men and women in elite professions.
Even if I am wrong about some of these things, I still don't believe patriarchy is a useful concept that does offer insight. Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer explanations in terms of patriarhy, so we may decide whether this offers some superior or additional insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
