How Feminism Was Co-Opted By Capitalism

LandscapeVia the Guardian, Nancy Fraser on reclaiming the ideals of feminism that have been co-opted by the dominant economic system:

As a feminist, I’ve always assumed that by fighting to emancipate women I was building a better world – more egalitarian, just and free. But lately I’ve begun to worry that our critique of sexism is now supplying the justification for new forms of inequality and exploitation.

Feminist ideas that once formed part of a radical worldview are increasingly expressed in individualist terms. Where feminists once criticised a society that promoted careerism, they now advise women to “lean in”. A movement that once prioritised social solidarity now celebrates female entrepreneurs. A perspective that once valorised “care” and interdependence now encourages individual advancement and meritocracy.

What lies behind this shift is a sea-change in the character of capitalism. The state-managed capitalism of the postwar era has given way to a new form of capitalism – “disorganised”, globalising, neoliberal. Second-wave feminism emerged as a critique of the first but has become the handmaiden of the second.

One contribution was our critique of the “family wage”: the ideal of a male breadwinner-female homemaker family that was central to state-organised capitalism. Feminist criticism of that ideal now serves to legitimate “flexible capitalism”. After all, this form of capitalism relies heavily on women’s waged labour, especially low-waged work in service and manufacturing, performed not only by young single women but also by married women and women with children; not by only racialised women, but by women of virtually all nationalities and ethnicities.

Never mind that the reality that underlies the new ideal is depressed wage levels, decreased job security, declining living standards, a steep rise in the number of hours worked for wages per household, exacerbation of the double shift – now often a triple or quadruple shift – and a rise in poverty, increasingly concentrated in female-headed households. Invoking the feminist critique of the family wage to justify exploitation, neoliberalism harnesses the dream of women’s emancipation to the engine of capital accumulation.

Read the rest at the Guardian.

159 Comments on "How Feminism Was Co-Opted By Capitalism"

  1. Liam_McGonagle | Oct 23, 2013 at 11:02 am |

    This observation is liable to net you a kick in the nuts, but:

    “What did you expect would happen by flooding the labor market?”

    • kowalityjesus | Oct 23, 2013 at 12:26 pm |

      I think outsourcing should be illegal because overseas shipping conflicts with long-distance whale communication.

    • atlanticus | Oct 23, 2013 at 7:20 pm |

      Have you ever read the S.C.U.M. Manifesto? A very different kind of feminism outlined in that screed…

      • Liam_McGonagle | Oct 24, 2013 at 9:03 am |

        No, I haven’t. Thanks for the reference.

      • She wasn’t wholly serious with that though. Sort of a “Modest Proposal” to scare the patriarchy. Not that she didn’t have some screws loose, but her attempt to kill Warhol was more due to her feeling personally slighted by him.

        • oneironauticus | Oct 28, 2013 at 7:30 pm |

          Thanks for clearing that up!

          I’d always assumed it was a parody, by certain reversals of common misogynist arguments, but when I heard she had shot Andy Warhol, I thought “oh wow, that lady is srs bznz…” and was shocked at the example of such an extremist.

  2. One must read Henry George’s book ‘Progress & Poverty’. It’s sad that with progress comes poverty. Mr. George states that it’s not a conflict between Labor & Capital. It’s the fact that Landowners own most of the productive ‘land’. Read the book; it’s informative.

  3. Orenthal Jameson | Oct 23, 2013 at 12:11 pm |

    is neo-liberal just doublespeak for neo-conservative?

    • Yes, they are basically synonyms. The only difference between the two is their gang affiliations.

      • Actually I’d go further – in that “NeoLiberal” is Conservatism as spoken through what’s now considered “liberal” mouthes.

        And when what was formerly considered right to far-right is now left, what’s left for the right to espouse?

  4. Eric_D_Read | Oct 23, 2013 at 12:50 pm |

    Al that is is feminism coming full circle. Early suffragette and feminist leaders were virtually all upper class women out for their interests. They didn’t give a shit about the proles any more than they do today.

    A long read, but it captures the situation beautifully.

    “The single greatest obstacle to turning women into fully productive members of the workforce, i.e. batteries, is not men obstructing them but their persistent belief in metaphysics. If the thing that is keeping women out of the underpaid labor force is “family”, then family must go, and if what pulls them towards family is love then love has to be a fantasy.”

  5. Ted Heistman | Oct 23, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

    The Tao Te Ching kind of celebrates the real strength behind feminie energy.

    I see a big gulf between that and shrill aggressive acting cunts like Hillary Clinton.

    • Could the agression be viewed as a backlash to male oriented agression?

      • Ted Heistman | Oct 23, 2013 at 3:07 pm |

        Well whatever it is its not this

        that is actually what works.

        I see that a couple cunts have downvoted me. Thanks cunts.

        • I didn’t downvote you, however I find that word to be very distasteful. I feel you are asking for it by using such a distasteful word. Upon reading your first comment, it seems to me that you may have strong issues with women. Specifically women in power.

          Several words of advice. you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

          Something else you may consider. Are you forgetting the shadow themes to the strength tarot?

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 23, 2013 at 3:30 pm |

            I don’t really care to say all the rights things. I am not trying catch flies. But its is true that if you want people to like you telling them what you think they want to hear is a very common approach.

            Anyway yeah I don’t like Butch acting woman trying to be men. But I have known quite a few powerful women. We got on quite well.

            And I am not concerned with being down voted by cunts.

          • The way I understand it, many of the women in such roles pretty much need to be that way. Out male the males.


          • Ted Heistman | Oct 23, 2013 at 3:41 pm |

            I sense you have a problem with masculinity. I actually don’t. At the end of the day if a woman is naturally Butch, that is her being herself. Hillary always struck me as a fake. Her shrill voice struck me as forced. This fakeness was revealed later when it came out that she is a compulsive liar.

          • Not really. I just view most guys who want to be percieved as super masculine as over compensating for something. I see it as a waste, and it bothers me that they tend to take it out on others around them.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm |

            I dunno, I think some people are naturally masculine and as our culture becomes more effete and removed from basic biological facts of existence these qualities are increasingly vilified.

            I do think though that masculine energy can be channeled in positive ways, but that often cynics just stand on the sidelines and act all ironic and effeminate, without really doing anything superior themselves.

          • Definately, but calling a woman in a place of power a cunt and consistently asserting how manly you are is not what I consider masculine. Can you remind me how manly you are again? I may believe you this time.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 23, 2013 at 5:13 pm |

            Hillary is a cunt because she acts like a cunt. I didn’t say all female political leaders are cunts. You like her for being a cunt, I don’t like her for being a cunt. All I can do is be myself. I don’t mind you being cynical and effeminate. So why give me a hard time for being myself?

          • I don’t like or dislike her. However, I do think you are mostly full of shit. So I am letting you know.

          • Translation: I know you are but what am I?


          • Bruteloop | Oct 24, 2013 at 4:11 am |

            How old are you? You are throwing the word around like a teenage kid hiding behind a keyboard. You are using the language of a bully. Surely you cannot be confusing that with masculinity?

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:23 pm |

            No, you very clearly stated that you hated her because she is “shrill, aggressive”, traits which you define as “cunty”, so-to-speak.

            I don’t care one way or another about Hillary (actually, I’ve heard she’s pro-censorship, so I’m at least against that) but it certainly isn’t because she is or isn’t an aggressive person.

            This isn’t a fucking chess match. I expect political leaders to be tough and mean when the situation calls for it.

            Honestly, think about what you’re saying here: if you have a problem with women being aggressive, all you’re really saying is that YOU can’t keep up. You see the bar being set higher, so rather than admit you can’t make the jump, you’d rather mock the people who can, based on absurd, quasi-religious justifications.

            p.s. That is, if you buy into the capitalist model that we’re all supposed to be competing, in the first place…hint: your personal definitions of masculinity appear to depend on hierarchy, rather than complementary cooperation, as you assert the Tao Te Ching and Tarot illustrate…

            p.p.s. Everyone is gay. That is all.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 25, 2013 at 1:12 am |

            You got all hot and bothered didn’t you? You really want me to be a Republican, don’t you? You know how silly you look? You have no Idea what you are talking about. Have you read a paper I wrote about my views on the Tao Te Ching? or are you a mind reader? I have a “celebration” view? WTF are you talking about? Do you spend most of your time alone talking to yourself? Is that why you fill in all the words for the other person? Yeah I am a Republican who spends all his time saying how wonderful capitalism, because that gets you off. whatever..

          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 8:22 pm |

            Are you fucking serious, man?

            1. Where did I say you were a Republican?

            2. Do you honestly not remember your own comments? You: “The Tao Te Ching kind of celebrates the real strength behind feminie energy.”

            3. Are you on drugs right now? Because you seem like you’re on drugs. The bad kind.

          • Translation: I think you are full of shit.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:29 pm |

            “some people are naturally masculine”

            You think this category includes you, do you? That’s fascinating. You honestly don’t come off that way, you know.

            I’m not even trying to be mean, because I don’t consider “masculine” to be either a positive or negative trait.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 25, 2013 at 9:08 am |

            No, you’re not being mean, you’re just trying to emasculate a male. Nothing new.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 8:23 pm |

            “I don’t consider “masculine” to be either a positive or negative trait.”

            Dude, you would emasculate this guy. You’d probably call him a fag. Don’t be a hypocrite.

          • Translation: I am fine with who I am, and I do not feel the need to inform everyone how masculine of feminine I may or may not be. Besides this is the internet. The universe of experts and fakers.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 24, 2013 at 1:59 am |

            You have a shrill voice.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:16 pm |

            I was literally just thinking about his podcast debut a few months ago…

            Ted’s voice is actually quite high for a man…and his cadence is very clearly not that of an “alpha” male, so I don’t understand why someone his age would still be trying so hard at this machismo schtick…

            The only thing lamer than a douche-bag “alpha” is an “alpha-wannabe”.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 25, 2013 at 1:18 am |

            Cute. And guess what? I will still write and do more podcasts. What are you going to do? Go around and around arguing with right wing trolls on message boards? Go for it. Be all you can be.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 6:39 pm |

            You don’t know what I do, or who I am. 🙂

            (It’s admittedly tacky of me to rub it in your face, but if you knew half of what I do, you’d eat your shoes; but do have fun with your “writing” and “podcasts”…)

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 25, 2013 at 1:14 am |

            Why should I care what you think of me? You identify with Hillary also? sorry I called you a cunt. There is that better?

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 25, 2013 at 1:46 am |

            No, it’s not better. Your forum behavior continues to deteriorate and it has nothing to do with me. That you are transferring your derogatory language towards a public persona onto me, w/ the claim that it is due to my identification (which has never been evidenced), demonstrates a breakdown in your ability to engage in reality-based object relations.
            My statement regarding your voice was a true observation. It was not a ‘thought about you’. You are privy to very few of my thoughts about you. I cannot answer for you why you should or should not care about anyone’s thoughts or observations.
            You are obviously going through something that is making you hostile and vulgar towards others. Of that, I do hope it gets better.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 25, 2013 at 1:52 am |

            Thank you Thesaurus Rex. Its seems you take our “relationship” way more seriously than I do. I find you ridiculous. For all I know nothing you say about yourself is true. Not sure where the goal post is for wasting too much time talking to people like you here in the comments section here. But obviously I am not hitting it. I think maybe its time to play a new game.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 25, 2013 at 2:06 am |

            I accept your ridicule.

          • Translation: Much like the mentioning of the Tao, the female energy can include male energy. Sometimes there is an abundance. Your possible posturing makes it appear as though you misunderstand this, or maybe more deliberate ommition of information?

          • oneironauticus | Oct 23, 2013 at 9:05 pm |

            You know, some “butch” women are not “trying to be men” any more than some “feminine” men are “trying to be women”.

            I know this is a pretty shocking concept, but gender does not always match sex–and not all of those people are interested in a sex-change, either.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 23, 2013 at 10:05 pm |

            You seem to hear what you want to hear

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 23, 2013 at 10:06 pm |

            And you seem to want to her something you disagree with so you can feel self righteous

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:25 pm |

            I heard exactly what everyone else here heard.

            We’re only in a forum that can prove my assertion by these little arrows at the bottom of the comments…did you not know what those were there for?

          • Because he is a superior macho man, it’s his right to be who he is. But because Hillary Clinton is a woman, and gasp in a position of power, it’s not her right. Therefor she’s a cunt.

          • Bruteloop | Oct 24, 2013 at 4:00 am |

            You know, I see that word being used by Americans more and more recently. I guess it could be said to be possible that a word can lose meaning and significance when transferred between one culture and another but I personally don’t see it. Besides, maybe you mean it with the full weight. But, if so, I can tell you that were you to use that in the UK to someone’s face round where I live you would have immediately built yourself a reputation as someone who needed a pasting by one of the local hard men. I don’t mean to offend. I am genuinely surprised.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:13 pm |

            That’s interesting, because I think most Americans have the impression that the word is used more frequently in the UK…based mostly on movies about gangsters and drug-addicts, now that I think about it… >_>

          • Bruteloop | Oct 25, 2013 at 5:17 am |

            It is indeed used more frequently in the UK. It is seen as fighting talk. Anyone who calls someone they don’t know that will be seen as someone who thinks he is hard and needs to be put in his place. However, between friends it is used in an inverse way as a signifier of the friendship…because you just don’t call anyone that. Proof that the friendship is strong because the implied insult is negated by it. It was also very much a Cockney thing which is why it has leaked into films. Americans don’t get the nuances or the parochial aspects. They can’t be expected to.
            Same with the word ‘wanker’.
            Which is, coincidentally, the word you would use to describe someone who used the other word in this context.
            Obviously there are equivalents in US vernacular.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 25, 2013 at 1:20 am |

            I am sure the UK is a magical place where anyone who calls American politicians a cunt are soon put to rights by the local “hard men” whatever the fuck that means.

          • Bruteloop | Oct 25, 2013 at 4:53 am |

            You just don’t get it. You weren’t just calling politicians that. You were calling people who down voted you as well. I was trying to point out that you throw the word around with the obvious impunity anyone behind a keyboard has but you have no idea of how much of an insult it is seen as here. It has only come into noticeable usage in the US recently. Rogan flings it around like a kid acting tough as well. Reducing the comment section on Disinfo to the level of Youtube is depressing. Calling politicians out is one thing. Referring to others on this site in such a manner is another.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 25, 2013 at 10:12 am |

            Ok, “Bruteloop” thanks for the etiquette lesson. It tears me up inside knowing I offended your delicate occidental sensibilities.

          • Bruteloop | Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm |

            Me. Delicate? You surely. You get offended by those who disagree with you and start name calling. You dragged the whole thing down into a muck war. Big balls bully behind a keyboard with Disinfo your own personal
            arena. Yours to keep. Killed it for me. You won. Feel better now?

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

            They say familiarity breeds contempt. Time to be more aloof.

            Its definitely interesting that the commenters here have kind of collectively turned on me. You guys seem to embody a kind of gestalt of values, left wing, feminist, cynical, sarcastic, anti-establishment, in kind of a passive aggressive way. Its a certian type of energy I feel here that has come to feel kind of disgusting really. Its a self righteous energy too. The self righteousness is caught up in the idea that being passive and cynical is fighting the good fight, that there is no alternative.

            Everyone who rejects you must be a right wing Republican Captialist, misogynist, etc. That’s the only other alternative, so I must be that right?

            I don’t have any plans to make nicey nicey noises to gain the approval of the likes of you.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 6:43 pm |

            Passive aggressive has a specific meaning. It doesn’t mean “weakly aggressive”. I think everyone here has been quite clear about their points and intentions.

          • Bruteloop | Oct 27, 2013 at 8:53 am |

            You were calling people cunts. There is nothing cynical or self righteous about calling you out for that. Learn some manners. I never mentioned politics, left or right, never talked about the connection or not to misogyny and I don’t even understand why capitalism comes into it at all. A number of people didn’t like what you said and mentioned it. You decided to come back at them by name calling and decided to use that word in particular back at them. Clever.
            There is a reason people turned on you. you clearly cannot or will not grasp that. Instead you attempt to identify them all in some kind of spurious grouping that exists only in your head while you play the misunderstood martyr/victim who really is the only one who knows and tells it like it is.
            The cynicism is yours.
            We do agree on one thing however. Something here is disgusting.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 27, 2013 at 9:20 am |

            wow. How can I be more like you? What is your secret?

          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 6:42 pm |

            As he said: “You were calling people who down voted you as well.”

            You were being a jerk and you can’t accept that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

          • Emer Mugwort | Oct 23, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

            why do you hate the word cunt? it’s original meaning was wise-woman but has been co-opted by misogynists. many feminists now aim to reclaim the word as a positive one, encouraging people to think about why they find the word so distasteful. all it means is vagina.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:11 pm |

            And as Inga Muscio’s book “Cunt” pointed out, “vagina” means “sheathe”…hardly an empowering word…

          • are women in need of “empowerment”? I’ve always felt women were intrinsically powerful. already without needing men to use new words or whatever, to “empower” them.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 8:58 pm |

            Well…that depends on a lot of things…mostly the culture and family they were born into, but some of the most “empowered” women I know were born into extremely conservative families and simply rebelled…

            It might have made them stronger, as is the case for a lot of people, male or female, who post here, I think.

            At any rate, I personally don’t like thinking of my sexual parts as a “sheathe” to a “sword” because…a sword is active and a sheathe is merely a container for the active sword. This is simply not my experience. I don’t feel like my genitals are a mere container.

            Again, it’s never about the words themselves, it’s about their meanings and language accurately reflecting reality. Men don’t need to use new words–PEOPLE need to use new words which reflect a more complete view of reality.

            And I’m not even necessarily talking about “political correctness” (I’m often not, myself–I am gen Y, after all…) A lot of that crap is just headache-inducing nit-picking.

            However, language should be and *is* shaped by the people who use it…if it is realized that a particular thought-pattern encoded in language is not accurately (or even close-to accurately) reflecting an average point-of-view (especially, in this case, of the actual BODIES of the people who wish to define their own realities), then the language itself should, and does, change.

          • I don’t see the problem with a vagina being symbolized as a container. I see cosmic patterns in our world and the active and passive dualism are related to the sex organs. Ted mentioned the Tao te Ching and how it regards the passive as “greater and stronger” than the active. St. Paul says “in my weakness is my strength”. In all honesty, despite its lack of political correctness in modern times, the feminine corresponds with the passive, the weak, the dark, etc and there is nothing wrong with that. This is a cosmic pattern and some reason we have many hang-ups these days concerning Male and Female. Well, the reason is largely the fault of ignorant men who demonize the feminine, but that, too, plays a part in the Cosmic Drama
            I would like to add that I find it important for a male to be in tune with his Anima. I also choose to identify as female sometimes. Not physically, but I consider my soul Feminine to my God who is Masculine. Although, He is neither masculine or feminine and neither am I. It is more of a role I play to understand my Self.
            It seems nonsensical, but I’ve learned to embrace paradoxes and contradictions.
            Anyways, mostly I was trying to express my feeling that our culture has way too many hang-ups concerning the Cosmic Pattern of Male/Female and I think this modern, “progressive” understanding is ignorant and is largely a reaction to the evils perpetrated by Patriarchy. I think it is important for women to embrace the Feminine and get in tune with their Animus/the Masculine. As well, men should embrace the Masculine(in a positive manner, of course) and learn to cooperate and get in tune with their Anima/the Feminine.
            You probably know by now, but I share a lot of Jung’s perspective.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 6:57 pm |

            The problem from the beginning has been that not all women see themselves as passive, weak, etc, and when they try to tell others’ (both men and women who *do* identify with these traits) about their REAL EXPERIENCE OF LIFE they are often accused of being crazy, bitchy/cunty, “trying to be men”, etc.
            I mean…can you just *try* to imagine for a moment what that must be like? To *know* you aren’t what people say you must be, but for people to insist you are anyway?

            And worse, to not even want to be a man–personally, I like the fashion accoutrement associated with being a woman. I walk in high heels better than most women; I genuinely like corsets. You get the idea… (holy shit, I should be a dominatrix?)

            “God” is definitely neither masculine nor feminine, though I understood your analogy. That one always irked me as a child…

          • if that is the experience of women, what do you think they could learn from it? I think I have experienced something similar. Who cares what other people think?
            I didn’t say women have to be passive or weak. I said that these are some of the traits of Yin or the Feminine. Being born a woman, means you MAY be more inclined to such traits.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 26, 2013 at 2:57 pm |

            “if that is the experience of women, what do you think they could learn from it?”

            That they will not be taken seriously by others in this life time.

            “Who cares what other people think?”

            Easy for you to say. I can’t imagine it occurs to you how this affects every facet of life. No man, nor woman, is an island.

          • its not easy for me to say. its a struggle for everyone to get over the “need” for approval, particularly for the approval of those of the opposite sex. it seems this need for approval effects women more than men. I don’t think that is an inherent trait, though. I think its largely caused by overbearing AND absent fathers. it seems people who have parents that aren’t overcritical crave approval from others, less. also people who had adequate positive attention from both parents.
            I think there is some jealousy on both sides. women are jealous of men, men are jealous of women. being born a woman, you will never know what its truly like to be a man, no matter if you had a sex change. being born a man, i’ll never know whats it like to be a woman. (although, I did once have a dream that I had a vagina. but I cant be sure that’s what it really feels like). I think there is a lesson that can be learned about this. it takes awareness. I was watching a mother give birth, once, and felt a strong pang of jealousy that I would never get to have that kinda relationship a mother has with her children. but it occurred to me that I didn’t have to. instead, I could be happy for the Other’s happiness and just bask in the mother’s glow, and even help mothers, encourage mothers, and give respect to and be grateful to mothers. that day I realized that, I was healed of a complex that was driving me and sapping me of my energy. I think a lot of wmen have penis envy, just like a lot of men have vagina envy. and a lot of the discord between men and women is caused by this jealousy. we always want what we don’t have. but if we realized that we aren’t just our physical bodies and we are truly Male and Female and neither Male or Female, and could learn to appreciate and be happy for the Other, a lot or all, even, of the discord between the sexes would end.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 26, 2013 at 3:57 pm |

            Alright, pathologize me, Freud: what do you make of a woman who had an absent mother and has, in the past, struggled with approval of women more than approval of men?

            I do not fit your neat little categories. Many humans don’t, male or female.

            “we always want what we don’t have.”

            Um, no. I really don’t. Although you have carefully avoided generalization words such as “all”, I am not personally interested in other women’s penis envy or lack thereof, or your vagina envy.

            This conversation started when I said I DON’T have a problem with my cunt. I have a problem with *other people* saying ignorant things about my cunt, such as suggesting that it isn’t as active as a cock. I have a problem with people saying ignorant things, in general, if you haven’t noticed.

            You’re right: you will never experience having a vagina, so why do you insist that you are in any position to tell ME what my vagina is like, whatsoever? You’re not my lover.

            Do you honestly not understand?

          • mostly, I was speaking generalizations and observations I’ve made about myself and others I’ve met, with help from jung and sages across the spectrum of religions and cultures. I wasn’t saying these were clear cut categories, its all fluid, rather.
            im not trying to pretend im an expert in these matters (if there is such a thing), I just play with these ideas the way a musician might play with chords or a poet with words. it seems telling to me that you get so offended. and not just you, but many I talk to of our generation, get offended. if i’m wrong and striking discordant notes, then so be it. but I think i’m onto something when people react so strongly.
            im not the one to get into other’s business, but since you offered… you mentioned having an absent mother, maybe you seek the approval of strong women typified by certain feminists. I was hard at work one day, working for a man my fathers age. the thought popped in my head that I work so hard to get my (absent) fathers approval, identifying older men I respected as my father. thing was, I kept working hard, but no longer for those reasons, which sapped me of energy.
            I said before, a woman and her vag can be active. just like on the Yin side of the Yin/Yang there is a white spot. BUT, women are generally more YIN. Why is that so offensive to say? When the ancients ate a plant they would make observations about its characteristics, whether it was hot and dry or cold and wet, etc. I observe the world through my own eyes and make observations about reality based on that, though it be “subjective”.
            But I did experience having a vag, I just cant know for sure how real it was, being a dream. But no woman knows if other women experience it the same, either. You never wanted to experience what the Other experiences? Whether its a man’s experience or the experience of a house cat? Maybe I’m just naturally more curious than others, but I’ve also learned to not crave experience and have learned to simply appreciate the Other and be glad for them. Otherwise, I’d probably be driven to strange acts, like the time I was a kid and crawled on all fours following my cats around and trying to live like them 😉

          • oneironauticus | Oct 27, 2013 at 1:11 pm |

            Oh, I consider the experiences of my (male) cat *all the time*, I recently told my black co-worker that if I was black I would have dreads (I hope she didn’t find this offensive, but I can’t see how it would be) and of course I have at times wondered what it’s like to have a dick (my conclusion being: it would completely suck to have your important parts outside of you, all vulnerable and shit; it makes absolutely no sense that men are more likely than women to engage in sports likely to get them racked, it also makes no sense that men don’t wear skirts more frequently)…

            That is not even *close* to what you were suggesting: that this means I *want* to have a dick, any more than I want to be a cat (not since I was 5, anyway…I’m not a furry, actually. O_O)

            This: “it seems telling to me that you get so offended. and not just you, but many I talk to of our generation, get offended. if i’m wrong and striking discordant notes, then so be it. but I think i’m onto something when people react so strongly.”

            …is the sort of bullshit that makes me pull out my hair and scream.

            There are other reasons why people get offended and reject statements made about them.

            If you said I was a thief, depending on the circumstances, I might get offended about it–that isn’t fucking proof that I am one! This logic is completely bogus unless you have more information about the situation, the personality/character of the person involved, etc.

            Or, in other words, your attempt at reverse psychology would not hold up in court.

          • yeh, maybe yer right. I shouldn’t say that its “telling”, like that. I don’t mean that its telling, as in, it confirms my observations. but a strong reaction does tell something.
            I still say, though, that almost everyone is jealous of the opposite sex.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 27, 2013 at 1:48 pm |

            *shrugs* I’m not.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 9:01 pm |

            That being said, I don’t think many women are going to give enough of a shit about “vagina” once meaning “sheathe”, for it to change…

            On the other hand, most women do not actually refer to their own sexual parts as “vagina”, especially because this does not include the clitoris or the vulva…”vagina”, technically speaking, is just the hole, itself.

            Most women probably just call it a “pussy”, I think. Meow.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 25, 2013 at 2:02 am |

            that depends – the same root also produces words such as consciousness

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | Oct 25, 2013 at 8:31 am |

            Biggest cunt of them all.

          • Really? Wow, that’s interesting. Is the root “con-“?

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm |

            indoeuropean: skei-
            it’s the basic concept of division
            the word for knife also comes from it. Many roots will contain polar concepts.
            you also get the word for science.
            In this case ‘conscious’ could be seen as the joining of divisions – creating awareness

          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 6:44 pm |

            How…?…is “vagina” from “skei-“?

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 26, 2013 at 2:26 am |

            Cunt has associations with skei- as in cut or gash. Also PIE gwen- gyno – queen.
            Vagina, though also referring to enveloping with early associations to sheath. comes from wag- back & forth. More specifically cradle, as in rock the cradle of love.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 26, 2013 at 2:52 pm |

            You’re more into words than I thought (unless you just looked that up)…and here I thought I was advanced for trying to read The Canterbury Tales in original Middle English. (I didn’t get very far).

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 27, 2013 at 1:11 pm |

            I use language lexicons as a xtianista might use Strong’s Concordance. PIE roots are not that hard to play with. There are only ~500 basic ones. Do I look things up – yes, but it is an adjunct to my own memory/explorations. Often when I write songs or more poetic forms I will “translate” into roots and then follow different paths of language development to come up with extended connections. Do I use a book or personal notes to do this, absolutely.

            You might enjoy looking at this:


          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 6:40 pm |

            Really? Link?

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 26, 2013 at 2:41 am |



            root words are very broad though. you can see the association with cloaca.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 26, 2013 at 2:54 pm |

            Neato. I know how I’m spending my afternoon. (Aw, that’s a lil’ sad…) 😛

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:30 pm |

            I still would say, even if all feminists reclaim it as many have the word “bitch”, it’s still very clear when it’s being used as an insult.

            It’s not the word itself, it’s the intention.

          • He was attempting to show how dominant and studly he was. Besides, it’s an ugly sounding word. Vagina has a nicer sound to it.

          • Translation: Calling her a distasteful name made you look like an idiot.

            Using a less distasteful word may have made you look less misogynistic.

            I am aware of your habit of deliberately leaving out information to appear like you know what you are talking about.

          • It’s what he does. Imagine how gratifying it is to him that he can dominate this discussion with his pseudo intellectual BS.

        • oneironauticus | Oct 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm |

          You’re welcome impotent, floppy tool. 🙂

    • bobbiethejean | Oct 23, 2013 at 7:18 pm |

      You do realize that “shrill” is one of the words commonly employed by sexists to denigrate women, don’t you? I’m not accusing you of being sexist and “shrill” is not a four letter word but you might want to watch how you use it. Now calling Hillary a cunt, that’s just rotten of you. What would you prefer she acts like? Kim Kardashian?×3845855

      If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were that Joe the revelator guy.

    • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 9:17 pm |

      I can’t find it at the moment, but Alan Watts had a quote about the Tao Te Ching’s definition of femininity which is somewhat counter to your “celebration” interpretation…I’ll be sure to let you know when I find it.

      To paraphrase: These are systems designed by men.

      Please think deeply about that obvious fact.

      • Lao Tzu and many other of the great teachers knew that we overemphasize the Masculine, the Active, the Strong, the Light, etc. To bring ourselves back in harmony with the Tao it is the job of the sage to practice swimming counter to the stream of the world. Instead of learning, he forgets. Instead of being active in the world, he practices wu-wei/not-doing. He develops the traits of water, being humble and going to the low places, flowing around, bending instead of staying rigid…

        • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 11:17 pm |

          That is understood, but think again: why are they assuming women are not “Active”, “Strong”, “Light”, etc? Do you honestly not know men who are naturally “Passive”, “Weak”, etc?

  6. jasonpaulhayes | Oct 23, 2013 at 2:46 pm |

    You can thank Edward Bernays (Freud’s Nephew), Father of PR and ” influenced the way corporations and governments have analyzed,‭ dealt with, and controlled ‬people.”

    Watch the Adam Curtis series “The Century of the Self”

    • oneironauticus | Oct 23, 2013 at 9:02 pm |


      • jasonpaulhayes | Oct 24, 2013 at 11:39 am |

        That’s right, “Torches of Freedom” I believe they were called. The goal was to get women paying into the tax system that was made up of primarily working men until that time. It didn’t quite work out that well initially, it split many households and many conservatives have used it as an example of the evils of liberalism in destroying the nuclear family… by taking the mother out of the home.

        A woman’s place is wherever she would like, as opposed to where she is told to be by her “man” or “the man”.

        • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 8:18 pm |

          I think it was “liberty torches”…cigarettes. It took me half a decade to quit, even after seeing this documentary the first time.

          Well, I wasn’t ready…I was still considering Communication Design back then…Why fight the dark side when you can join it, Luke?

  7. tibby trillz | Oct 23, 2013 at 4:44 pm |

    both parents work now and we’re broker and more in debt than we ever were. not really all that great a victory.

    • bobbiethejean | Oct 23, 2013 at 7:12 pm |

      The reason we’re broke has nothing to do with the fact that women have entered the workforce, if that’s what you’re implying.

      • tibby trillz | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:50 pm |

        it does though. buy another car, maintain that car, buy gas for it, buy insurance for it, have a nanny watch your kids and clean the house, eat fast food everynight, then pay for zoloft and therapy sessions for your kids. yes, there are bad consequences to having both parents work. its absolutely ridiculous to say there arent. i want to add some comment about how it could be either parent who stays at home but i feel like you will be much more satisfied if i just said “fuck them broads!” instead of trying to explain what i meant by that comment which was about as natural a response as you could have in trying to summarize that article.

        • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 7:21 pm |

          There are far more reasons than just “both parents working”–houses used to be smaller, people used to eat less, etc. There isn’t an actual need for most of the crap that people do spend on, after all, hence no real “reason” for both parents to work so many hours.

          In an ideal universe, there could have been a compromise from the beginning where both parents work *part-time* and no one works a full 8-hour day.

          In that universe, both parents spend equal time with the kids. Both parents have time to pursue other hobbies. Both parents have fulfillment in work (because there isn’t a precedent that “if you’re not working a full 8-hours per day, you can’t get ahead…” –you know, the crap they tend to throw at women who might consider becoming pregnant at some point?)

          In lower-class families who used to own their own businesses (you know, those “ma & pa” shops that you’ve heard tell of in history class?) the work divide was very much like this, although perhaps the lines between work / family-time / hobbies were less clear, as well…

          In fact, it should be pointed out that lower-class women have NEVER not been working. Lower classes have always had to rely on both partners working for basic survival.

          • tibby trillz | Oct 27, 2013 at 10:58 am |

            so you agree with me. great

          • oneironauticus | Oct 27, 2013 at 1:13 pm |

            I don’t believe you understood a single word.

          • tibby trillz | Oct 27, 2013 at 1:38 pm |

            i believe that in real life if we were discussing this face to face you would be nice to me and i would be nice to you and we would conclude this discussion with both of us conceding several points to eachother, but since we are on the internet right now, fuck off.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm |

            *shrugs* You were rude first.

          • tibby trillz | Oct 27, 2013 at 2:17 pm |

            see, this is where the internet problem pops up. i wasnt rude, i said you agree with me, which you seemed to do in your comment, i kind of think we were arriving at the same point in different ways.which is why i said that in real life we would have reached consensus. i just dont know what goes wrong in comment sections but i know the intention always reads as negative at the other end so i figured that i might as well give you a better reason to not like what i say because i still think, both of our comments really werent diametrically opposed to eachother and i sort of think you were elaborating on what i had said but you still wanted to see it from an angle where i was in opposition which isnt really the case.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 27, 2013 at 2:26 pm |

            It seemed as though you were either 1.) being sarcastic, or 2.) refusing to actually read my comment in depth.

            I don’t agree that it’s “because both parents are working”–I think it is because both parents are working full time combined with the fact that wages were not adjusted with inflation (as bobbiethejean stated).

            I honestly don’t think *either* parent should work full time. I think it’s mad, actually. We could have had a near-paradise.

          • tibby trillz | Oct 27, 2013 at 2:46 pm |

            its not even full time 40 hour week anymore either. i have 2 friends with kids and they both work 80 hours a week. they work in film and even though they make a buttload of money, it wont ever make up for the time they are losing not being around their kids and the stress that working constantly puts on them. feels like all the progress we made in the early 20th centrury has evaporated in the past 20 years. thats not an antifeminism statement, just the truth of our present situation where you are judged only for career based successes.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 27, 2013 at 2:53 pm |

            Yes. I just don’t think it’s *because* both parents are working…personally, if I should ever choose to breed, I want to home-school. I’m working on finding some way to work as little as possible, and/or from home, so that I can be free to make that decision.

        • bobbiethejean | Oct 25, 2013 at 9:14 pm |

          As opposed to the very obvious answer that wages (especially minimum wage) have not adjusted with inflation. Plenty of other countries that have allowed women into the workforce are doing very well, a lot better than we are in fact. Your leaps of logic are a little too leapy and not very logical.

          • tibby trillz | Oct 27, 2013 at 11:00 am |

            thats part of it. sure, but what would happen in a society where the wages were adjusted for inflation? one parent would probably stay home with the kids no? so you agree with me. fantastic.

          • bobbiethejean | Oct 28, 2013 at 10:29 am |

            No I don’t agree with you, you presumptuous arse. A lot of socialist/capitalist-lite countries such as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have wages that adjust for inflation and both parents still work. They just work a lot less and spend more time with their kids.

          • tibby trillz | Oct 28, 2013 at 5:47 pm |

            a white land owning male is talking right now!

          • futurewidow | Oct 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm |

            and no one gives a shit

          • tibby trillz | Oct 29, 2013 at 7:10 pm |

            you’re never going to find a husband with that attitude

  8. Emer Mugwort | Oct 23, 2013 at 4:52 pm |

    d’oh no one can be free under capitalism.

  9. Lookinfor Buford | Oct 23, 2013 at 4:58 pm |

    Careful what you ask for right?

    When was Feminism ever about anything but women acting like and being treated exactly like men? Is’ a shame..

    • bobbiethejean | Oct 23, 2013 at 7:25 pm |

      You want to give me one good reason women should not have been allowed to vote? Or enter the workforce? Or a good reason women should be relegated to baby making, cooking, and cleaning? How would you like it if society arbitrarily decided your kind of people (whatever kind you may be) should not be allowed to vote, work, or participate in the government.

    • oneironauticus | Oct 23, 2013 at 9:09 pm |

      Again…there actually are several points in feminist history when it was NOT about being treated exactly like men…not that you’ll ever read any to find out for yourself.

    • It was about being equal but different, and loosening the chains of having to play your “assigned role” in somebody else’s vision of how things ought to be. In that sense, feminism promoted liberation for everyone.

      • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 24, 2013 at 11:33 am |

        If only it was played out subtly, then maybe it wouldn’t have been so damaging. You know, not all women are built for the man’s world. Not all wanted to coalesce, and many are confused and depressed to this day because they are out of place. Like it or not, men, on average, are just built better for the capitalist world.

        There have always been women who showed up in that world and kicked ass, and good for them. And to answer you two ladies below, yes, they should have that opportunity. I don’t want to hold anyone back.. libertarian-ish, remember? But, I do believe the feminist movement pressured (in no small way) all women to be more assertive, more ambitious and more man-like. My personal feeling about it is that it has made many of them less successful, not to mention less attractive.
        As far as voting rights, I think we’ve had it wrong all along. I think that someone should be informed and educated, at least to a minimal degree, before having the right to vote. Never happen, but I just think it is disingenuous for someone who doesn’t understand the stakes to go vote. What righteousness can you use to counter that argument? Why should dumb people with no clue about current affairs have a say in our elections?
        But, of course women should have every right to vote, work, etc..
        I blame feminism not only for the degradation of the image of women, but also for landing many of them in an unhappy place because their relationships fail because they echoed these manly attitudes at the home which will naturally, always drive men away.
        My opinions.. I liked women a lot better when they were motherly, reserved, pretty, sugary and spicy. But that doesn’t mean I don’t get super-impressed and googly-eyed when I see a powerful woman walk in a room. I feel much admiration for her, as well.
        So my point is, the upwardly mobile thing is great for some women, but radical feminists went too far in guilting society into trying to force it on all women. And women have suffered because of it, not to mention families. I have a daughter, and I will raised her to be capable, and brainy, but I will also raise her to be a lady.

        • And what if your daughter has different ideas about what and how she wants to be? Your whole statement is on the theme of how YOU think things should be. Who defines what being a lady is? Who decides if a citizen is qualified to vote? You are entitled to your own views, but how would you justify enforcing those views on others?

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 24, 2013 at 4:10 pm |

            She’s my daughter. I will raise her how I see fit, and then release her to her own identity when she comes of age. I will love her unconditionally, and enjoy every minute of rebellion or conformity, take your pick. She’ll have a hard time surprising me, or topping my reckless rebellion as a youth. I welcome every moment of her quest to establish herself.

            But in the meantime, she will learn proper manners. She will learn by example how to love, and she will be taught to embrace every ounce of her femininity. She will not be told she’s been dealt a bad hand, and that if she wants true acceptance, she should be a boy.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 11:43 pm |

            “She will not be told she’s been dealt a bad hand, and that if she wants true acceptance, she should be a boy.”


            If you think that’s what feminism is…Well no wonder you’re confused. Did you understand this article?

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 25, 2013 at 10:36 am |

            That may not have been the intent.. but it sure as hell has been the message. It’s not *my* misinterpretation of feminism that you should worry about, it’s the modern woman’s.

          • oneironauticus | Oct 25, 2013 at 7:08 pm |

            Well, again, that’s what this article is about.

            I’m equally as concerned for the men who want to be women. Not because I think anything is wrong with that, in itself–I just hope it’s not coming from a child-hood sense of shame over being associated with negative portrayals of their body’s sex.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 29, 2013 at 11:26 am |

            The paradigm I mentioned is extremely large scale. It affects the lives of all young women in this country. Males confused about their gender? sad, but infinitesimal and completely irrelevant to this conversation.

        • oneironauticus | Oct 24, 2013 at 7:35 pm |

          “You know, not all women are built for the man’s world.”

          Not all men are built for the “man’s world”. (And I mean straight men).

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 25, 2013 at 8:59 am |

            ‘Tis true, I’ll concede that one. But I worry more about the women, because that’s my nature.

        • I might point out that the capitalist model the author of the article is calling “neoliberal” is a better target for blame than “feminism”. One thing that supports that idea is that it has had an equally disastrous influence on men, completely aside from the bad influence it has had on women.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 25, 2013 at 10:24 am |

            Can you elaborate on what you mean by disastrous influence? Look, even staunch capitalists who are honest will tell you it’s not a perfect system, it’s just proven to be the best system invented so far. Alas, it really invented itself. Argue against it all day if you will, but show me a better way. Socialism is a proven failure, when compared side by side with equal parameters next to capitalism. But I am interested in your opinion on how this system has been a bad influence on men, anyway.

          • Capitalism has proved itself to be the best shytstem? Are you kidding? Maybe it has for those who prosper by it. Which are few. What has it done to our Earth and the majority of its inhabitants?
            Sell yer soul to the wicked god of this world(Mammon) and maybe you will prosper. But try to maintain yer integrity as a creation of God, the God who freely gives, and then lets see if you will say capitalism is so great.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 29, 2013 at 11:51 am |

            Capitalism has proved itself to be the best shytstem?
            Are you kidding?
            Maybe it has for those who prosper by it. Which are few.
            Check the GDP.
            What has it done to our Earth and the majority of its inhabitants?
            Do you suggest that a world without capitalism would not need natural resources, and/or would somehow automatically be better stewards of such?

            Sell yer soul to the wicked god of this world(Mammon) and maybe you will prosper. But try to maintain yer integrity as a creation of God, the God who freely gives, and then lets see if you will say capitalism is so great.
            Or, just work hard every day, and prosper enough to survive, feed your family, and have the ability to give freely and help those in need. Not all of us who work had to sell our soul, you know. Many of us feel it is payment in earnest to the ancestors who gave all for our freedom of opportunity.
            Do these scummy, evil capitalists ever give to the needy?
            How bout the Commies of the world?
            If you still disagree with my, I suggest an extended visit to, say, Pakistan, or even Venezuela. Take a look at the opportunities abound for everyone to seize upon. Have a look at the amount of ‘help’ flowing into the charitable organizations there. Look at the choices the average 18 – 22 year old has in those countries for their future, and look at the stats of the paths they follow. None of it is shocking to me, how about you?

          • y’know there are alternatives to capitalism and big C Communism.(big difference between Communism and communism. the early church were communists).

            GDP has nothing to do with true prosperity. Capitalism wastes resources because it worships profit, which means getting more than you give. so, yes, a world w/o capitalism will use less resources because w/o capitalism(and certain other shytstems) we’d only use what is NECESSARY. Capitalism is witchcraft. An abomination of God. You sacrifice to its god and receive its gifts in return. A system where some get more than they give, while the many get less than they give.

            What does it mean to you to work hard every day? Have you ever heard the Commie saying “From each according to his means, to each according to his needs”? Is that not fair? Does that not mean work as much as yer able to provide for the community, and you and yer family receive as much as they need, not more not less? If you cant work, the community takes care of you. If you can work you are held accountable by the community to pull yer weight. And before you claim that never happens in practice, and use examples of Soviet and Cuban Communism(which are not communism), let me tell you that there are many examples across the world of this working out. In fact, it probably is how yer household works. I’m sure you freely give to yer kids what they need, but expect them to give what they can in return. As I said, that’s how the Early Christian Church worked and there are spiritual communities who still abide by such. For example, see Koinonia Farm in GA, the 12 Tribes of Israel, do a Wikipedia search on Rainbow Gatherings.

            I believe you need a reality check and to look outside yer comfy bubble. I’m not saying you don’t work hard. My mother worked 3 jobs as a single parent, raising 2 children and made never more than 12,000$ a year. Worked her ass off to provide for us. Yeah, she was on welfare for a year or so and NEEDED and still NEEDS food stamps(you try to pay for an apartment, provide for your kids what they need and feed them with under 12000$) She never did drugs, didn’t drink, didn’t have a gambling problem, couldn’t of afforded any of that if he wanted to.

            That is one example. And that’s here in the Good Ol’ US of A! Now, look what our corporations are doing to the rest of the earth. Look at Nike factories in Bangladesh. Africans mining metals for a dollar a day so I can type on this computer. Look at the wasteland we call earth. The decimation of animals and plant life. So we can build highrises and playthings for the super rich. Look at the destruction of culture and traditions, the destruction of the family. Hopelessness and despair. I see it because I’m mired in it. And I have also seen the glories of communal life, and the possibilities of reviving tradition, living simple off the land in joy with brothers and sisters who share what they have with me, no one having more or less than another. That is a possibility for more people if they can break out of this Capitalistic greedy mindset and work together. Yes, some people may get lazy. So what? In our society what do basketball players do? Movie stars? Politicians? CEOs? The difference is a lazy man in a community is directly held accountable by his fellows. Its hard to hide yer laziness.

            Well, that’s my anti-capitalist rant for the day. I just wanna say you need to look around you and realize what capitalism has done and is doing. open your eyes. and know there are alternatives to centralized State Communism(which is NOT communism) and capitalism and Socialism. And if you are Christian, you need to know Jesus Christ hates capitalism and this world. His followers were communists, meaning they had NO PRIVATE PROPERTY and SHARED EVERYTHING IN COMMON.

          • also, you never proved to me why capitalism is so great(other than just sayin GDP) and you just compared it to other worse systems. That proves nothing. except that you haven’t really thought about it.

          • Socialism, democracy and capitalism have all failed because they become dominated by power mad nut jobs who corrupt them. Free market capitalism is a myth… there is no such thing. Markets are constantly being manipulated by governments and powerful corporate players.

            The flaunting of wealth and power is how those on top inform the rest of us that they are the “winners” in this crooked game. It’s the only thing excessive wealth is good for.

            And that is the model of “success” that capitalism dangles in front of us. The piles of money, the ability to strut around and act superior, the ability to break the law and get away with it. This has a corrupting influence on society as a whole: men, women and children.

            It is a big lie because that kind of “success” does not reflect real human values and human needs… it simply reflects the deranged need of a few to stroke their crippled egos. It is a vicious, destructive and insanely twisted model of what a good and fulfilling life is. It is destroying the environment, destroying democracy and it will ultimately destroy itself — because it takes too much and gives back too little.

            I don’t mean to be rude. I really liked what you said about raising your daughter. It might surprise you to know that a lot of feminists would approve, too. I say I don’t mean to be rude — because there is massive evidence of this all around you every day and you would know all this if you were just paying attention and were not so quick to believe the propaganda that is shoveled at you by corporate liars and their lap dogs and pet politicians… who, by the way, do not give one stinking shit about you or your daughter, and if they have their way, there will be no world for her to live in.

            That’s all I can fit in this little box.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 25, 2013 at 4:25 pm |

            Pretty fatalistic there, skippy.. kinda Holden Caulfield-ish. Anyway, I do like the passion. But again, I say, show me a better way. Bringing this system down will hurt many, very badly, and help very few. Turning it socialist will only result in more entrenched power and corruption than we have today, and less opportunity. There is no reset button, until we sacrifice our lives for liberty again, and then what, what system would you put in place? Because even if it’s a great one, it is moot unless you can explain how to get there from here.

          • “The most revolutionary act is a clear view of the world as it really is.” Rosa Luxemburg

            “And then the challenge is to not become so bummed out by what you see that you do nothing to make it better.” me

            This system is already hurting vast numbers of people and has plans in the works to hurt even more. My take on the essence of the problem is expressed in an essay that is going to appear here one of these days, so I won’t try to duplicate that now.

            I do believe we must practice resistance and non-cooperation to/with destructive influences. But I also believe that trying to live consciously and honestly, and engaging life in a creative and constructive way is the most powerful thing we can do. And that we have opportunities, however small, to do this every day.

            I’m a little old (by about 50 years) for the “teenage angst and rebellion” label.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 29, 2013 at 11:42 am |

            This system is already hurting vast numbers..
            I completely disagree.
            ..of people and has plans in the works to hurt even more.
            Only because it is being coopted by Communists.
            Yeah sure call me a right-wing nut. I’m not, you know. I simply know that, on average, people will stay useless and lazy as long as they are helped into doing so. When the system coddles people, large numbers of them are lost to subsisting on the bare minimum, and being ok with that, aside from putting forth the effort to protest that they need ‘more help’. Welfare, food-stamps, any entitlement that hasn’t been earned to some degree (like socsec and medicare is) falls under this problem.
            It’s a very real problem and anyone who promotes this type of welfare is a commie in my book. The ‘helped’ are the real victims. Their lives are destroyed in this process, the same way spoiled children who never had to earn anything are worthless as adults, so are the coddled. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and raise your children this way and watch how worthless they end up as human beings.
            All of the enlightened philosophy you preach, and the golden chalice of self actualization are completely unattainable to people who are coddled in this way. Furthermore, they couldn’t care less about these things. They have been destroyed.

          • Well there, skippy… I saw what you said about raising your daughter (which sounded pretty good) and then I saw the condescending arrogance in how you actually interacted with women on this forum (and with me), which showed the hypocrisy of your high-minded pretense.

            So you just go ahead and blather on.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 30, 2013 at 9:56 am |

            I have little tolerance for aggressive offensive women. I don’t consider you one, but many on this forum are well deserving of harsh rebuttal. I can converse with you, jnana.. even bobbie has shown she has some humility. The rest that I’ve engaged are way out there. So sorry if I’m human.

          • Downvoting because you called him “skippy.”

          • I think that would be legitimate except… look earlier in the thread. I’m just returning it to him.

          • I answered this yesterday, but I don’t see that post here now, so I’ll try again.

            If you search within this thread you will find he used the term “skippy” first. If you study his remarks to me and others here and in the thread about suppression of women voters, it is evident that a main part of his approach to dealing with disagreement is exactly that kind of “diminishment”. It is an attempt to dominate rather than to discuss or provide valid evidence or logic to support his opinion.

            You may also note that the people I get into flame wars with here or elsewhere, have this characteristic in common.

            My position is this… I respect real “conservative” views just as much as I respect real “liberal” views. I think they both have value and validity when applied appropriately. I do not respect bullies who misrepresent themselves, misrepresent what others are saying, support their opinion with shallow slogans which they don’t even practice themselves, and resort almost immediately to dehumanizing terms like “skippy” or “cunts”. I’m not defending the women, because they can do that themselves. There are many intelligent and honest people who hang around here and I like that. I actively despise and practice near zero tolerance of bullies. When they hang themselves with their own words, I’m more than willing to call them on it. If that makes me a cartoonish, hot headed Robocop or Elmer Fudd stalking his prey – I’ll live with the ridicule it brings me.

            60+years of life experience has brought me to the conclusion that the main reason we live in a crumbling and corrupt world dominated by assholes is that we have colluded with them by granting them power and validity they do not deserve and could never acquire without our fearful complacency.

            I see the recent attention to bullying that is making its way into the news as the arising of a grassroots movement that is beginning to recognized this.

          • I agree almost completely.

          • I don’t agree that medical care has to be earned, because a sick or injured person is not in a state to work on anything other than healing.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 30, 2013 at 11:36 am |

            Wasn’t suggesting that sick people get off their duff and work for help.. Just pointing out that we all ‘currently’ and before ACA, have paid into this system while we are/were working.

          • its a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. problem is, b/c of lack of regulation, too many jobs are shipped overseas, not to mention over-mechanization, destruction of the earth and waste of resources(which is REAL VALUE, as opposed to fake currency). also, too much regulation makes it difficult to start a business. the work isn’t out there for the unemployed, and the work that is, sucks and pays shit. you are fortunate. vast swaths of people in the u.s. aren’t. yes, some are lazy, and it is easier to be lazy when you receive money from the gov’t. but that’s how they want it. keep the people dependent and fighting amongst each other so they don’t realize who the enemy in their midst

          • Downvoting because you called her “skippy.”

          • Keep in mind that there are different definitions of capitalism. The most basic one is personal ownership of means of production, which I believe is a human right as the best way for individuals to protect their own survive. That doesn’t necessarily have to entail monetary profit driven finance capitalism, or a privatized hoarding of the land, atmosphere, and oceans on which we also depend on for survival. I maintain that capitalism, like socialism, is a good thing if not taken to extremes with an intent to eradicate any trace of the other.

          • Yes, I do get that. The actual meaning of all these terms is very muddled. In theory, all these systems or institutions are serviceable when kept in balance with one another. We’re going to have government and a monetary system of some kind.

  10. Lifestyle marketing is the new identity politics.

  11. There’s a lot of raw anger at modern feminism from the women who are not among the white upscale professional women the movement now exclusively serves the interest of, who feel betrayed by the women who claim to speak for them. The biggest complaint I hear from those ex-feminists is that movement feminism doesn’t listen to them.

    What’s discussed in the article is common to just about every major movement.

    The Powell Memo of 1971 basically said that the 99% was getting too much, and the solution was to buy up the political dialogue. Reagan was the first visible political result. The Democratic Party officially sold out when Clinton’s DLC took over and sold influence to the highest bidders in the 1990s. After the corporate interests and superwealthy bought up the mainstream, they went on to the fringes.

    A friend asked me the other day if I knew of any movements of significant size that have not been coopted. I couldn’t think of any. Libertarianism is financed by corporate welfare clients, Wall Street underwrote the Tea Party movement to provide right-wing populist support for the accelerated destruction version of the neoliberal centrist agenda with a side order of bigotry to pull in NASCAR dads, progressivism is just the upscale “boil the frog slower” version. Naomi Klein describes how environmentalism got coopted to the point where it is ineffectual in getting anti-global warming policy into law . Anyone who’s read my posts here knows how Futurism is funded.

    • how about the occupy movement? some of the more radical leftist movements seem harder to be co-opted. Extreme radical left being not conducive to money and power interests(other than big C Communism, which is no longer a power player)

Comments are closed.