This Is For The Men Who'll Roll Their Eyes

Saima,

I agree with the following and certainly the kinds minutely attenuated equations some of the male interactors have been posting in the last few days illustrate what a parody of this principle might look like:


"...This wasn't what the equal rights for women movement was about. It was about mental and physical autonomy for women, not a vastly more complex negotiation for a marriage, home and responsibility for child care...."

However, I'd look to those discussions taking place within the spheres of feminism, labor and economics. I see feminism as an ongoing movement and discourse that continues to move towards the goals of equality for both genders especially with regards to class, education, political engagement and policy. It continues to be an extremely relevant movement.

Feminism itself is a product of disguised corporate legitimation, it cannot renogotiate anything with its master, it can only divide and keep the slaves enslaved...

By the way, nobody is advocating going back to "imagined good old days", what we advocate is using rationality with reason unlike the reason-less rationality of the machinery of capitalism that is seen in the power-state i.e. a rush towards destroying the earth and managing poverty among people. Rationality with reason would imply that institutions should be geared to fulfill human needs of all, and that motivation should be based on truth and not manipulation, instead of using the knowledge and resources to enrich the few, they should be used equally for all humans; such thoughts are not devisive and do not play into the sectarianism that the elite want to perpetuate of which feminism is but one shade...same old divide and rule nonsense...

Saimashah writes "The corporation is an evolution of tribalism and has strong similarities--therefore I don't see it as all that different. Corporations as an advanced mode of tribalism are more developed, "

No the corporation is a new setup, call it evolution or what not (I have serious reservations about social darwinism and other so called "evolutions" in the social arena), a setup that is imposed on humanity using tribal symbols nonetheless but the "different" thing is that it is more concentrated, more pervasive, and more mass-controlling than the tribal tradition could ever aim at being. All my points still stand and I totally disagree that the role "homemaker" is limiting and the role of "corporation slave" is liberating...

Further, the Quran does not contain a single verse which says that women are inferior to men (please leave it out of your discussion if you don't know about it), women are different to men, and that difference calls for equality based on justice and not absolute equality. What you define as their natural "strategic decision" complements and does not go against the decision of man (even though that is the wet dream of the feminazis), and we know culturally they have been held subordinate (has nothing to do with God, but has everything to do with the dominant institutions of the time whose master symbols were being used at justification), when not masked by anti-family tendencies of the corporation for ulterior motive. That the corporation was fundamental in breaking up families is something that is beyond debate, as it is quite well established at present, part of the reflection of these anti-family cultural justifications that originate with the corporation is the hypocritical feminism, a tool to punish the woman while sloganeering about "liberation", and using her as a tool for labor adjustments while sending their kids to hell. Like I said earlier, an ideal situation for them for maximizing consumption and managing labor costs. That the US elite are racists and sexists and they reproduce these relationships in society while solganeering about liberation as "fasle consciousness", is something no analysis of gender at the present era can ignore. Religion or "tribalism" of the past is not to blame for the current situation which exceeds in reach, the reach of any petty tribalism...

Re: # 116

Expanding would probably need a column length article--but here goes: Women have taken on more responsibility than ever before in history to prove their ability and capability, however they earn less than men for comparable work. I think that says it all-the problem was never the lack of women's ability, the problem was always about negotiating respect and freedom of choice. Almost all ideologues prescribed male superiority over women. From the times of the Greeks to Islam, women did the worst work because God wanted it that way. That ingrained attitude is still there--men are either he-men, who want a simple domination and thus look for a dumb babe or sops who want the woman to keep them and their children.

Putting on trousers did change a few things; now women got to do a lot more work for a little more money than before. Fashion over the years has become more and more about creating a feminine version of a man rather than anything else. Femininity is reserved for socializing, and masculinity for work. Rather than changing work culture, feminism over the last several decades has changed women. Attempts to emancipate women have sought to change them--to tell them how to say no, how to stand up for themselves and how to walk out of marriages, how to get jobs etc. There have been 0 attempts to educate men directly. Feminism has had a similar focus on women just like religion did. The comparable narratives are : O ye pious women, cover yourself, stay home, while 'prophets' sleep with wives and slaves--strikes one that god speaks from male tongue. And Feminism, 'Emancipated women sleep with who they want, they wear less clothes and they have pride enough to tell men to go to hell if they hurt them' also serves men who now get sex for a dinner, rather than a piece of paper. Neither succeeded in making men less exploitative.

More and more, men expect women to shoulder the economic burden of rearing a family as well as provide the majority of child care. The way it is different from a tribal culture where women brought dowry is that women can earn the income using their skills and abilities rather than bring the money from their family resources.

This wasn't what the equal rights for women movement was about. It was about mental and physical autonomy for women, not a vastly more complex negotiation for a marriage, home and responsibility for child care.

[#103 nb
*** the family birthdays remembered***]

I saw recently "Lost in Translation" written and directed by Sofia Coppola. First thing that Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is handed includes a fax from home from his wife which reads: "You forgot Adams birthday I'm sure he'll understand. etc". The plot summaries for this movie at IMDB (which I assume are all written by americans) make several intersting points which could easily be made by choksters here.

Some crazy american has gone to a great extent of using high-tech to figure out what Bob speaks to Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) in whispers when he gives last embrace before parting on his way back to US. It is at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5MV7Sym8bIQ . (Hope the link survives dodgy chowk software)

Saima,

Could you expand on the following? Thanks.

"... Feminism alas, could not renegotiate the terms in women's favor. Alas, women have lost as much as gained by proving that a women is every bit as good as a man. Feminity unfortunately was the most immediate catastrophe. Equality isn't really the point..."

1. The corporation is an evolution of tribalism and has strong similarities--therefore I don't see it as all that different. Corporations as an advanced mode of tribalism are more developed, with a different purpose (profit vs. ideology) and has a larger elite than tribes of old. Whereas in tribalism a very small fraction of people got to make rules for the majority, the corporation has allowed a larger number of people to be co-opted in its agendas. Whether that makes it more bearable, kinder, more humane than tribal customs and mores is a choice that can't be tested or exercised. Comparisons can only be made indirectly i.e., from other people's accounts of what it was like to be an ordinary slave in a tribe.
2. Because of this, many leftist thinkers are criticized to be unreal romantics who want to go back to a time that never existed.
3. About my earlier comment that led to this; if man's ultimate purpose is to procreate and create hardy children, then all that is done by traditional society to make sex a reward to be earned is done so that people keep making family a purpose of life is fine. It meets the purpose.
4. The concern that many women have is that they want to be appreciated and respected in a system that has a secret agenda--to get women to do the work that men don't want to. On the part of men it is necessary to construct narratives that condition women to settle for less in return for social status and material wealth while rearing children. Dawa-e-dill has posted several items that validate this statement--if you can get past the publicity stunt for Islam. Most religions have conveniently obliged this desire of men to control women's choices. Now I don't want to get into a tangential debate over whether God is a man or not, but suffice to say that it is startlingly consistent across religions how the negotiation has gone. Monotheism=male god=family=oppression of women.
5. Feminism alas, could not renegotiate the terms in women's favor. Alas, women have lost as much as gained by proving that a women is every bit as good as a man. Feminity unfortunately was the most immediate catastrophe. Equality isn't really the point. The point is who gets to do what work and how do they decide? For every verse in the Quran that women are inferior to men, there is a verse supporting the rights of women. However the pre-assigned role as homemaker is extremely limiting and I am sure that no God/intelligent design would prescribe second degree and rigid roles for women which are in complete contrast to nature. In nature, the female is definitely the strategic sex who makes the key decisions.

This article has phrase "I’m waiting for the day when" occuring 31 times. It is a long series of wishes which can be all fulfilled in dreams (and then Doctor Freud can be called in to interprete them).

On worth of services provided women at home: there is strength in the argument that worth is very low simply because they would not be willing to sell these services in open market. The sex is obvious example of this. But even cooking food and selling it (that is, catering business), ironing clothes, laundry, nursing kids when sick, etc etc. Not every woman wants to do these professionally even when there is no obvious sexploitation connotation of these.

Just as it is wrong to assign value to sexual intercourse provided by wife equal to the average amount charged by a prostitute simply because they will not sell that service in open market, so also it is wrong to value other services (laundry etc) by prevailing market rate. Once they start charging prevailing market rates and start peddling household service there will be chaos.

To make children I will ask surrogtcy service from wife of guy living on second floor, for managing an erection for purpose of sex for pleasure I will ask wife of guy living on third floor because she wears most dainty of noserings which happen to be my fetish, for laundry I will go to a neighbourhood shudra's jhopdi and ask the wife to wash my underwear, patloons, shirts etc.

Behind wanting a male child and not peddling household service is logic. That logic is not immediate commercial gain which is the priciple that regulates the market. The logic is of survivabilty of generations. Wife is thinking not only money she will get but whether her sons and daughters will survive and whether they will have children who will survive. etc

In fact when a girl rejects a groom she is thinking about a better as yet not seen groom who would have better genes, better society etc so that her linage never dries up. Same thinking goes on in the mind of men also when they select wives.

The disconnect is there between this logic and actual life. Call it Darwin's evolutionary logic. It was under sway of this logic Neanderthals disapeared. Or at any rate they were forced to interbreed with Homo Sapiens. From the look of it western world has reaped immediate gains from women's emancipation. But a couple of centuries is not enough to tell us if their generations will survive forever. Who knows if they were wrong and eastern people were right?

Dash Dot writes "masadi i agree with much of what you say but until the corporation degrades women and minorities in violent ways it will still be superior in many ways to indogenous culture all over "

Actually the corporation degrades ALL in violent ways in the countless wars they have fueled. The nature of their weapons is such that they cannot discriminate between men and women when it comes to violence...On the other hand concentrating poverty among women, perpetuating an image of woman as an "object" does indeed lead to violence and rape (the rape culture of the US for example) that is not fed by "indigeneoous" culture. Of course the manipulation of the corporation has consequences and those consequences often lead to violence against women, which is quite subtle since its maniplulation so you don't know which enemy to attack, whereas in indigeneous cultures that promote violence against women, the enemy is clear to see...

Re: # 107

masadi

It is superb dear masadi. But is woman a human at all as it is clamouring for woman rights and not human rights?

#106 by Rafia87

"it is deplorable 2 c the followers of our beautiful religion ISLAM(which elevated the status of women) continiously hampering the freedom of women..."

Freedom and status: you are mixing up dear.

Think about a pros and a sex-slave. Nothing
hampers a pros from freedom but what is her status in Islam and our culture. On the other hand our prevalent culture does not allow sex-slave, a woman deprived of all human rights.

I don't know what you mean by Islam. As far as Quran is concerned it considers man to be superior (afzal) than the woman and holds him as a soveriegn in the family to whom the wife (or wives) are answerable - vide verse 34 of Soora Nisa.

Re: # 107
masadi the good old communist would have live in the world of Mao, and stalin.
In fact if he had his way he would want us all to go back in time ala polpot.

Re: # 77
clefty you da man! you rock. more power to you womin.

say it as it is.

tall fair bride vs. intelligent bride...

This criticism is fair - I agree with this - men should always look for the intelligent bride... but on the real question is - what do the women want?... how many women want to discard their looks and be judged/accepted based only/mostly on their intelligence?

apparently not many... even in developed, educated socities like US... which is why paris hilton is popular, not Sunita Williams, the astronaut, or myriad other high achiever women across the board...

Am I right?

masadi i agree with much of what you say but until the corporation degrades women and minorities in violent ways it will still be superior in many ways to indogenous culture all over ....there is no corporation equivalent to karo kari, jirgah rape, dowry death etc.

cliftonbridge writes "masadi "the corporation" may be evil but has been much kinder to women than the traditional culture of any part of the world. "

The corporation is not "kinder" in any way, it is just manipulative, it seeks to control in implicit ways, unlike the crude explicit ways of the "traditional" cultures you're talking about. This demon is the one who has taken humanity out of humans and converted them into moronic cheerful robots, no traditional culture was ever able to achieve that in such a neatly packaged and benign way.....