important change to the general posting guidelines (Mar 8)

[23]

Wow. Sounds like I have to read that misogyny thread.

After you do, I'd be curious about your impression re. the following:

did you get the impression that the discussants were using a definition of misogyny that was common to them all;

or, did you get the impression that various (and possibly disparate) definitions of misogyny were in play?

TIA

[freemason9]

i didn't know what it meant, and now i'm afraid to find out

[Cosmic Cowbell]

i didn't know what it meant, and now i'm afraid to find out

[Crow]

Wow. Sounds like I have to read that misogyny thread.

I reached the opposite conclusion.

Props to Jeff and the moderators for the new rules. I wish they were enacted all over the Internet -- and the "real" world, too -- until they become so ingrained that they no longer need to be codified.

[Nordic]

[Perelandra]

IRT the OP, I like the addition, but not the second paragraph, it seems redundant.

[OP ED]

(...and my view on the nonexistence of any general, independant-of-a-specific-political-order human "rights" might lead to some borderline places).

i encounter this problem fairly often.

[wordspeak2]

If I may I'd like to jump in on the feminism conversation.
I'm a male and a self-identified feminist. I believe that overcoming/overthrowing patriarchy should be our fundamental objectivity as revolutionaries, and that capitalism is more of a byproduct. I appreciate the spirit behind the inclusion of this piece in the posting guidelines.
Certainly, the feminist movement as defined going way back to Susan B. Anthony and the right to suffrage is one of the great social movements of all-time. It continues to this day. However, searcher08 is absolutely right that Gloria Steinem and that *element* of the feminist movement that she represented was funded by the CIA. Call that a "new world order plot," if you like; it's just a fact. One should note that there was also a "socialist feminist" active in the sixties and seventies. I've looked at some of its literature. It was certainly not funded by the CIA! The movement Steinem represented was upper-class; in my opinion, that's why it was supported by the power structure. It was, I would argue, the co-optation of the feminist movement. It was not politically radical. It argued for the incorporation of women in the workplace, and ruling capitalists were fine to allow that, ultimately. It did not stand with organized labor; it gave middle and upper-class women a vehicle through which to fight for their own self-interest. One can argue that there was more positive to negative to that, and that conversation may be important. But you can't say it wasn't supported by the CIA, because it was.
In my personal humble opinion, I like the term anti-patriarchy, because it is broad, and refers not just to relations between men and women, but to the whole way the society is structured. There have been cultures in the distant past in which women were revered, and I believe we need to return to that. Usually, these societies had a positive relationship with the earth and psychoactive plants, and did not include the use of "control drugs" such as alcohol, and I believe this is a very related paradigm shift. Feminism should mean returning to earth-based sacrilege, ending the ecological terrorism of capitalism. Hardly an NWO plot.

[Searcher08]

Thank you for that, wordspeak2. You articulated my concerns regarding the "deeply dodgy" roots of 'MS' Steinem very clearly. I share your concerns about the critical importance of pulling the plug on patriarchy.
- for me personally, I try by by moment to moment action and reflection and modelling respect for the person.
Q How specifically did I myself do it today? One by posting this, the other, witnessing a tiny victory.
A By the way I asked the waitress in a (two floor) cafe I was in for a coffee. The most I could do in that situation was make contact, create rapport and mention, in a light way, that I imagined her feet were sore from going up and down stairs so often (she smiled and said indeed they were) When she brought the coffees, even though I was engrossed with my mate, I stopped and when I received the coffee I looked her in the eye, said "Thank you" and smiled and MEANT it. She beamed and said "You're welcome!" - and MEANT it. One small interaction that left each of us enhanced.
She was in a sea of ordinary working class blokes who were chatting with their mates about footie and who either ignored her beverage laden arrival, saying "Cheerz dahlin" without connection... or asking her out (!) in cheeky-chappie style "So wenz u comming att wiv us for a beer gor-jus?" and she was adept in the way good waiters and waitresses are, at handling this..."Maybe you ask again next week, so I see if you are gentleman or just air head" which was greeted with a good natured chorus of taunting to the guy, looking sheepish) from his friends. an "You tell im!" to her.
I respected her because she was her own woman and made her own small stand. The system found equilibrium through her humour and grace. I would put money that the cheeky chappie wondered about what he said.
We smiled and 'thumbs upped' to each other as I left.


I've been surprised at the lack of apparent interest in this subject here.
Instead?...nit picking? who is being offended by whom about what? conversational hissy fits? Is that it??? Hmmmm.... whatever floats your boat. but has much has changed?

Do the financial elites care about equality for women in the most general sense?
I would say almost certainly not, as a thing in itself. But as a means to an end, sure.
From a purely finance capital point of view, when one has a market penetration of only 50% of the potential population, well those margins gotta change. When Bernays launched the campaign to get women to smoke as a symbol of their independence, I think that was a stunningly clear template of the approach - one of the use that the financial elites and the corporatocracy has had for both women in general and the women's movement.

An enabler to exploit a huge new market of wage slaves.

I have seen loads of women trade-in their female power for an attitude which could best be described as 'out-pricking the pricks' . They mirror the the most toxic men and toxic images of men in the business environment around them; they treat every interaction as a potential war. When a certain strain of ideological feminist is challenged on this, the response tends to be that "I am trying to diminish those womens power!!". ORLY? I beg to differ. It is the cult of you have to be a "bitch" to 'survive and thrive' in a "dog eat dog corporate world". It maps to a conversation I have seen black people discuss about black people turning 'white' - articulating a somewhat similar loss of sense of their roots, playing along to get along, a kind of co-option - is that the right phrase? So one sees 'pseudo-feminists' apparently waving the feminist flag but actually being active foot soldiers, captains and generals for establishing exploitative finance capital and showing equal rapacity in corporates (and the concomitant lifestyles as being worth modelling, when actually, these things are not what they are cracked up to be, maybe even they are things whose continued existence is at the very root, the very fabric of patriarchy itself thus the oppression of women themselves.

Would a conversation about this would be worthwhile?

[wordspeak2]

"Would a conversation about this would be worthwhile?"

I don't know, but to hyper-generalize, I'd say the establishment as a whole is split on the incorporation of women, as it is on people of color- though certainly the trend is towards incorporation, with the old-school die-hard sexists and racists surely losing out in time to the cooler heads, who know that fascism is a friendly. A funny example was the internal battle within the Yale Skull and Bones secret society in the nineties. The undergraduate rulers-of-the-world-to-be wanted to start including women in the secret society. The alumni, the technical owners, including William Bennet, said: NO GIRLS ALLOWED. They locked the door to the S+B building, and wouldn't let the undergrads in. There was a battle so heated it was editorialized over in the New York Times (with the writer siding with the undergrads, naturally). Eventually, the old guys had to let the new- people- have their way, though not without a grumble.

Searher08, that's a lovely story. I'd just say the next step would be to stop drinking coffee. Maybe tea?