Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   what is feminism?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 304 (413666)
07-31-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Hyroglyphx
07-31-2007 2:03 PM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
But we've seen a latchkey kid generation with a lot problems.
Everybody old grouses about the new generation. Your grandparents said the same thing about you. Hell, Plato once said:
quote:
What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?
Old people wondering "what's got into these kids these days" is like the oldest schtick in the world. If you want us to believe that it constitutes a real problem - that there is something wrong with these kids these days - then that's an argument that requires some pretty substantial evidence.
Consider that you're complaining about latchkey kids who come home from school and are alone until their parents show up a few hours later, but it was maybe 100 years ago when kids largely raised themselves in the streets because their parents were working 12-hour shifts at the factory seven days a week. I think, somehow, our young people will get over it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-31-2007 2:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-01-2007 8:54 AM crashfrog has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 227 of 304 (413684)
07-31-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Hyroglyphx
07-31-2007 7:16 PM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
there are not enough jobs to support the amount of people there are.
oh please.
that's just an excuse for thinking. shuttup. really.
there are plenty of jobs. did you know there's a huge scarcity of workers in the agricultural field in this country? even with all the scary immigrants and those money grubbing, selfish women!
and there's now always a lowest bidder
there's always been a lowest bidder. it's not like more people randomly invents a lowest bidder. if there are three people to work a job, then one with bid lower than the other because he actually wants it.
Can you expound on your argument a little?
i don't need to. this is stupid.
If the job market weren't saturated with workers, there would have been nothing driving up prices to begin with.
so demand in the job market changes prices, but demand in the goods market doesn't? and demand in the job market not only lowers pay rates but raises product prices? holy crap that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
Call tech support right now, and tell me where the technician resides. 5 out of 10 times (s)he's from India. Why? Because we're selling American job overseas to the lowest bidder. If ever corporate greed were more blatant, I wouldn't need to disseminate that information now.
1. you said thailand neener neener.
2. i thought corporate greed wasn't the problem?
I have my suspicions as to why that is, but that's all I'm at liberty to share right now.
let me guess, i must be on the rag@!
Regardless of why, can you try and be nice, please?
can you try and be smart, please?
It sounds as if you have some personal experience with it.
nope. my mom stayed at home, and was mostly competent.
My mentioning of latchkey kids is just one facet of neglect.
it's not neglect. i think someone's whiney cause his mommy didn't spend enough time with him
Would you be inclined to agree, though, that if one parent were to stay at home with the kids, that it would be better overall for the entire familial unit?
no.
families are different and children are different. some children require lots of attention. most kids are perfectly fine with two working parents. most schools start just around when a lot of jobs start and it's good for kids to go to an after school activity. i think for most children, it's good to have the kind of responsibility and and liberty that having working parents provides. when the world was mostly agricultural, kids worked more or less on their own on the farms. and kids of rich families almost never saw their parents. they were raised by wet nurses and nannies and governesses and butlers and everyone except their parents. it's not neglect to make sure that someone is looking after your children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-31-2007 7:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-01-2007 9:24 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 228 of 304 (413738)
08-01-2007 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by riVeRraT
07-31-2007 8:55 AM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
Not sure really.
I'm guessing the 50's ?
That's the problem. Many people today look to the immediate post-war period as some sort of standard that was lost when, actually, the lifestyle we idealize was a fairly new one for most Americans. Fact is, prior to WW2, a majority of Americans were quite poor and many, many women (and children!) worked. In industrial cities and towns they worked in factories and mills, in rural areas they worked on farms (both family farms and as seasonal labor) as laborers, livestock raisers/breeders, etc. During this time, men fought hard to bar women from jobs they had been doing for years because women were normally paid less than men and were therefore more desirable to employers. That is one reason why women were not often seen in "blue-collar" jobs after the late 1800's (except, of course, during WW2 - remember Rosie the Riviter?)
In the small "middle class", women were often business owners, especially in the western frontier areas. The businesses included specialty shops, groceries and hotels/inns. They also worked as dressmakers, teachers, nurses, midwives, milliners, and in other occupations.
Upper class women, for the most part, stayed at home and involved themselves in social, church and political activities and, incidentally often "outsourced" the raising of their children to nannies, but the working class women and their children, more often than not, worked all of their lives.
The irony, IMO, is that the majority of active feminists up until recently came from the upper classes (not all, though - many women who were active in the union movements also agitated for women's rights and their numbers multiplied in the 1940's and after) because they had much more leisure time to dedicate themselves to political activism and education. All of those "stay at home wives" were what got the movement started in the first place.
So, my point is, women have always worked. Not just in "women's" occupations, but alongside men in almost every kind of job.
I know you say you were not placing blame on the feminist movement for low wages, but it sounded like you were. Place blame where blame is due: on the unsatiable greed of those who run the businesses we work for and the politicians who support corporations over people.
Most of the jobs that made the aforementioned middle class what it became in the 20th century were previously low-paying jobs one worked at for 80 hours a week in atrocious conditions. Working class people fought hard to win well-paying jobs in a safe workplace with enough time for their families and now those jobs are going away either through union busting or outsourcing. Stop voting for your own economic destruction just because you are afraid of gays and "libruls" taking over. (That was a general "you" BTW)
/offtopic rant

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by riVeRraT, posted 07-31-2007 8:55 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by riVeRraT, posted 08-01-2007 10:12 AM Jaderis has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 304 (413755)
08-01-2007 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by crashfrog
07-31-2007 9:05 PM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
Everybody old grouses about the new generation. Your grandparents said the same thing about you.
They were right!
Old people wondering "what's got into these kids these days" is like the oldest schtick in the world. If you want us to believe that it constitutes a real problem - that there is something wrong with these kids these days - then that's an argument that requires some pretty substantial evidence.
I suspect that when you're old and gray, and the youth of that time were characterized as conservative Christians, you'd probably weep for the future.
Consider that you're complaining about latchkey kids who come home from school and are alone until their parents show up a few hours later, but it was maybe 100 years ago when kids largely raised themselves in the streets because their parents were working 12-hour shifts at the factory seven days a week.
When? In 1918?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2007 9:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 304 (413759)
08-01-2007 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by macaroniandcheese
07-31-2007 10:33 PM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
quote:
there are not enough jobs to support the amount of people there are.
oh please.
that's just an excuse for thinking. shuttup. really.
There's that rosy attitude again
there are plenty of jobs. did you know there's a huge scarcity of workers in the agricultural field in this country? even with all the scary immigrants and those money grubbing, selfish women!
There are only two possible reasons why an unemployment rate exists-- there are not enough jobs and/or some people do not want to work.
there's always been a lowest bidder. it's not like more people randomly invents a lowest bidder. if there are three people to work a job, then one with bid lower than the other because he actually wants it.
Okay... Thanks for corroborating my claim.
quote:
If the job market weren't saturated with workers, there would have been nothing driving up prices to begin with.
so demand in the job market changes prices, but demand in the goods market doesn't? and demand in the job market not only lowers pay rates but raises product prices? holy crap that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
I'm saying that in the old system of things, prices weren't nearly as relatively inflated as they are now. Corporate greed alone can't explain this phenomenon.
1. you said thailand neener neener.
2. i thought corporate greed wasn't the problem?
I said that it is an issue, just not an perpetual excuse you can whip out when things don't go your way.
let me guess, i must be on the rag@!
I don't know. You tell me what's up with your own incorrigable attitude.
it's not neglect. i think someone's whiney cause his mommy didn't spend enough time with him
My mommy loves me... She told me so, so it has to be true.
families are different and children are different. some children require lots of attention. most kids are perfectly fine with two working parents. most schools start just around when a lot of jobs start and it's good for kids to go to an after school activity. i think for most children, it's good to have the kind of responsibility and and liberty that having working parents provides. when the world was mostly agricultural, kids worked more or less on their own on the farms. and kids of rich families almost never saw their parents. they were raised by wet nurses and nannies and governesses and butlers and everyone except their parents. it's not neglect to make sure that someone is looking after your children.
We now have to deal with the influx of people swamping the market. Now we generally have to have a two-income household just to survive. That necessitates the need for more and more kids taken to daycare. But here's part of the problem. Often, when both parents work, one is essentially working to pay for the daycare in order for them work. But they break even. Since its often circular, why even work when you can care for your own kids? Why go to work if it generally only pays for daycare? What's the point?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-31-2007 10:33 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-01-2007 10:52 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 231 of 304 (413766)
08-01-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by crashfrog
07-31-2007 10:26 AM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
Yes. And you're wondering if feminism is to blame for that.
No, I wondered if there was a connection between the two.
I gave you several tries to accurately represent what I am asking, and you still got it wrong.
We get it, Rat.
Um, NO YOU DON'T
Otherwise, you would have never accuse me of those ridiculous things, and you would answer the question: "What was it I was wondering?" Correctly.
but you don't want to be called out onto the carpet for saying something so patently fucking stupid.
There is nothing stupid about wondering why both spouses have to work to support the family, while the kids get raised by a stupid babysitter.
But your just a kid yourself, so you don't get that. Maybe one day you'll understand.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Your lack of understanding, and BS replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2007 10:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2007 1:13 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 238 by molbiogirl, posted 08-01-2007 2:22 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 232 of 304 (413768)
08-01-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by molbiogirl
07-31-2007 4:24 PM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
Dear, dear rat. I'm afraid Crash is right. Where on god's green earth did you get the idea that I agree with you?
I never said you agree with me, I said you understood what I was asking.
Then you did not accuse me of not actually being a feminist, which I respect.
Get it, rat?
You seem to think that you have a "common sense" understanding of how things work. You do not.
I was asking a question, how does that translate into "I have a common sense understanding of how things work?"
All those studys you sited, do not address my question, only the amount that women get paid, relative to men.
Oh, and I was thinking about what nator said about blacks in the work place. I guess it really doesn't matter where the decrease in labor would come from, but supply and demand could easily dictate how much we make. It has nothing to do with women, or race, just supply and demand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by molbiogirl, posted 07-31-2007 4:24 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by molbiogirl, posted 08-01-2007 2:17 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 233 of 304 (413769)
08-01-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Jaderis
08-01-2007 3:39 AM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
During this time, men fought hard to bar women from jobs they had been doing for years because women were normally paid less than men and were therefore more desirable to employers.
That could cause men (or insert group here) to make less money. Supply and demand.
I know you say you were not placing blame on the feminist movement for low wages, but it sounded like you were. Place blame where blame is due: on the unsatiable greed of those who run the businesses we work for and the politicians who support corporations over people.
Sounds fair.
Thanks for the explanation.
Stop voting for your own economic destruction just because you are afraid of gays and "libruls" taking over.
I am independent. I'll vote for either party.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Jaderis, posted 08-01-2007 3:39 AM Jaderis has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 234 of 304 (413774)
08-01-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Hyroglyphx
08-01-2007 9:24 AM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
There's that rosy attitude again
maybe if you were smarter, i'd be nicer.
There are only two possible reasons why an unemployment rate exists-- there are not enough jobs and/or some people do not want to work.
if there aren't enough jobs, it's because companies are cutting them because the poor economy is making their costs higher and they don't want to cut into their profits. it's not because someone should stay home.
Okay... Thanks for corroborating my claim.
i did no such thing. just because more than one person applies for a job doesn't mean there aren't enough jobs.
I'm saying that in the old system of things, prices weren't nearly as relatively inflated as they are now.
what old system? when women didn't work? what daydream are you living in?
I don't know. You tell me what's up with your own incorrigable attitude.
it's solely because you're being so stupid.
We now have to deal with the influx of people swamping the market.
so don't have children.
But here's part of the problem. Often, when both parents work, one is essentially working to pay for the daycare in order for them work. But they break even. Since its often circular, why even work when you can care for your own kids? Why go to work if it generally only pays for daycare? What's the point?
you're only listening to the complaints of low-income single women. they have to work, but work only just pays for day care. unless the Riches send their kids to Le Spa! day care, most middle-income people don't have so problems paying for day care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-01-2007 9:24 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-01-2007 11:07 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 235 of 304 (413802)
08-01-2007 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by riVeRraT
08-01-2007 10:00 AM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
No, I wondered if there was a connection between the two.
Right - a blame connection, as in "did feminism cause this?" I mean, you certainly haven't appeared to wonder if this situation caused feminism, which would be the only other connection to be made.
There is nothing stupid about wondering why both spouses have to work to support the family, while the kids get raised by a stupid babysitter.
No. But it is pretty fucking stupid to wonder if feminism is responsible, and then try to deflect rebuttals by whining "but I'm a feminist!"
What the fuck is wrong with you? Just admit how disingenuous you're being, and we'll drop the whole thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by riVeRraT, posted 08-01-2007 10:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 08-01-2007 5:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 236 of 304 (413809)
08-01-2007 1:36 PM


Another reason for requiring two incomes
When I was very small my parents had only my Dad's meager income. They bought a house on that. It was, IIRC, about 2 or 3 thousand dollars.
However, that house today would be a condemned shack. It had no insulation, no central heating (only one room was heated and in our bedrooms spilled water froze on the floor. It had no basement floor, just dirt. You would never get a occupancy permit for it today.
A new car today costs between 10 and 20 times (in non adjusted dollars) what one costs when I bought my first one. But that car probably has A/C, power windows, disk brakes, a host of safety features (when before only some cars had seat belts). It requires much much less maintenance, is more powerful and more economical to run.
What has happened is our average standard of living in material things has climbed a great deal but it requires more than one ordinary income to maintain it.
Give up a modern house, current technology car (heck even a car since the ownership rates are way up and when I was smaller two car families were not the norm), half of the electronics which didn't exist a small number of decades ago and so on and maybe one income would do.
We live like kings compared to the average half a century ago.

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-01-2007 2:30 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 244 by riVeRraT, posted 08-01-2007 5:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 237 of 304 (413822)
08-01-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by riVeRraT
08-01-2007 10:07 AM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
I was asking a question, how does that translate into "I have a common sense understanding of how things work?"
How?
It has nothing to do with women, or race, just supply and demand.
That's how.
I'd like to see the evidence you have to support your contention that "supply and demand" is the sole factor in wage determination. Please provide a link.
All those studys you sited, do not address my question, only the amount that women get paid, relative to men.
Yes, these particular papers deal with the gender pay gap. However. I could just as easily have found a slew of highly technical papers that deal with wage determination in general.
The point is the same: Wage determination is a complicated business, whether one is trying to explain the gender gap or to explain the level of wages in general. Capiche? A complicated business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by riVeRraT, posted 08-01-2007 10:07 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by riVeRraT, posted 08-01-2007 5:29 PM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 238 of 304 (413824)
08-01-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by riVeRraT
08-01-2007 10:00 AM


Re: More to Vent, not Debate...
Hang on a second. I just noticed this:
There is nothing stupid about wondering why both spouses have to work to support the family...
What is your explanation for "why"?
No. Wait a minute. Let me guess!
Supply and demand!
Wages were suppressed by [insert group ... women, African-Americans, illegal immigrants ... take your pick]. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by riVeRraT, posted 08-01-2007 10:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by riVeRraT, posted 08-01-2007 5:31 PM molbiogirl has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 239 of 304 (413827)
08-01-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by NosyNed
08-01-2007 1:36 PM


Re: Another reason for requiring two incomes
very good point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2007 1:36 PM NosyNed has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 304 (413847)
08-01-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by crashfrog
07-27-2007 6:21 AM


Re: Must it be so extreme?
From Message 173
If our ancestor was, indeed, patriarchal, then the bonobos don't really pose a problem.
I just don't understand, then, which other ancestor you're talking about.
Hmm, its been a minute, I forgot. I don’t have time to read back through and figure it out AND post a reply so I’m just gonna do one.
Things that evolve external to our genetics but that evolve with us could be non-beneficial, but genetic traits that are not beneficial should be selected against.
Mm, not exactly. Things that don't impact survival can evolve, too, by genetic drift. But it's irrelevant since you don't have any evidence for your genetic theory of patriarchy.
Fuck evidence. You can’t discuss something unless I have evidence? Then don’t reply.
Patriarchy exists and evolution happens. If you’re unable to discuss the possibility and/or role of evolution in the emergence of patriarchy without evidence that it did, indeed, happen, then forget about it.
Well, the symbiotic ones do.
...no. Symbiotes and parasites are two different things.
According to wiki, parasites are a type symbiote. Looks like we were both wrong
BUT, if it is a natural evolutionary thing, then my motive is irrelevant to uncovering that truth (and esspecially if I'm trying to be unbiased about it).
Well, then let's see some evidence that it is.
I’ll let you know when I find some.
From Message 174
But here's the problem. Your basis is the well-known Naturalistic Fallacy, sometimes known as the Is-Ought Fallacy. Just because something is, doesn't mean that's the way it ought to be.
I realize that.
I think we should be careful in our transitions from what is to what ought to be. I’m weary of quick changes in foundations. Some people want to just flip a light switch and have things different. I think its irresponsible to not consider the consequences and just hope for the best. I think it is good that the resistance to the change exists even though the changes should, ultimately, take place.
The fact that patriarchy exists is not a point in favor of preserving it.
No, but that it has ensured the survival of other species shows that it does have some merit. The points in favor of preserving it would be the positive effects of the existence of patriarchy, not just the existence, itself.
To say that the males collectively and consciously chose patriarchy is to live in delusion.
Here you are, choosing it right now, CS.
And yet, I am still a feminist by your definition. Can you now see that there is something wrong with your definition?
Why is it so hard to imagine other men doing the exact same thing?
I can imagine other men doing it as well. What I do not see, however, is a conscious and collective effort by men, in general, to enforce patriarchy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2007 6:21 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by molbiogirl, posted 08-01-2007 5:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 257 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-01-2007 5:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2007 10:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024