Saturday, March 29, 2014

Feminism: Socialism in Panties

Karen Straughan explains that the roots of feminism are essentially collectivist. From the Declaration of Sentiments of Seneca Falls, published the same year as the Communist Manifesto, the language and philosophical framework of feminism is identical to that of marxism repurposed. It is a model of class struggle which casts men as the bourgeoisie and women as the proletariat, a social dynamic Karl Marx insisted must be internalized by women if women were to be convinced to participate in any communist revolution. This model lingers today in modern feminism and in mainstream society, despite a mountain of evidence that gender relations simply do not work this way.

Give this video about 10 minutes, it really gets going at that point.


27 comments:

  1. Don't forget that in libertyland, Milton Friedman is a socialist. Not sure if he wore panties or not but he was a full blown socialist!

    Here's Peter Schiff explaining why women get paid less than men. He says (@ 1.43) that "women get equal pay for equal work when they do equal work but they do not do equal work." The equal pay laws are "unfair because Obama wants women to be paid more for unequal work."

    Median income for men in 2012: 49,398
    Median income for women in 2012: 37,791

    No Paycheck Fairness in Hollywood
    http://youtu.be/nFIHOuDCKKE

    Women have a substantially higher poverty rate than men. Women over 65 have twice the poverty rate of men. Women between 18 to 64 have a 36% higher poverty rate than men (15% for women and 11% for men).

    census report
    http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf
    The poverty rate
    for women aged 65 and older was
    11.0 percent, while the poverty rate
    for men aged 65 and older was 6.6
    percent. The poverty rate for women
    aged 18 to 64 was 15.4 percent, while
    the poverty rate for men aged 18 to
    64 was 11.9 percent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wolfgangster, what's the workplace death gap between men and women? Karen Straughan claims that it's "greater than 93%", with women enjoying the advantage. (14:42) We should look also into the possibility that there is a tremendous gap between the injury rates of men and women at work. This would be consistent with the vast difference in death rates. After all, not every guy injured at work dies. So, we have another way to explain the difference in "Median income".

      Lest we not forget, let's recall also the well-known preferences of women for choosing lower-paying professions such as social work and for choosing for pink ghettos in commerce like the HR department. One does not learn how to run a big enterprise while working in HR and planning for a lengthy hiatus from the work force following pregnancy. And to explain "a substantially higher poverty rate than men" during old age, we need to consider the additional variable of women having longer lifespans.

      Delete
    2. Jerry, we get that you don't want to live in Libertyland. What we've never heard you say is where you would like to live. Coercionland? Dictatoria? Slavetopia?

      Delete
  2. Feminism was a scam to get women out of the home being a mother and into the workforce being a taxed corporate serf. It was part of the war on the family to reduce population levels.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Feminism: Socialism in Panties"

    Correct. It's 2014 and we STILL have people who I guess slept through the entire 20th century. These morons STILL REFUSE to give up on the most destructive and murderous ideology in history!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's called Cultural Marxism for a reason. It's sad to see people so many people in the Freedom Movement embrace this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Read their declaration. It's only openly and brazenly theistic in a way that the Declaration of Independence was not, and it contains this profoundly rich complaint:

    "He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns."

    There's other irony, too:

    "He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life."

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/senecafalls.asp

    ReplyDelete
  6. Karen Straughan is an absolute genius, and I'm thrilled to see her work showing up on your blog. This is *precisely* the kind of information that libertarians need to be exposed to now that feminism has set its sights on the libertarian movement in an attempt to colonize it (something that they've had a lot of practice at and have gotten very, very good at doing).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Grievance number two in the Seneca declaration:

    "He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice."

    Yet many men, too, had no voice in the formation of those laws, and I have a theory why this fact was neglected. Female feminists have long been preoccupied with establishing "an absolute tyrranny" [sic] over men. (Let's call this a conspiracy hypothesis.) So they state misleading generalizations to portray all men as criminals, and they do so with irony:

    "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing I found most interesting when I looked into those laws (Coverture) was that men were also compelled to submit to them. Interestingly, in many places it took decades after Coverture's negative impacts on women were eliminated to remove the Coverture stipulations for men that benefitted women, and in some places, like Michigan (where dower rights are still gendered), some of them remain.

      For instance, in NY State in 1910, women's income and property belonged to her and her alone, even after marriage, and this had been the case for over 40 years. In 1910, a woman was legally entitled to enter into any contract in her own name, as well. However, her husband was still responsible for providing her, through his income and property, all the necessities of life, and she could NOT contract with him to be independent. 40 years after women won property rights within marriage, husbands were still considered to be 100% financially responsible for their wives' and children's necessities and upkeep--to the point that if she spent a dime on her own food or clothes, she could sue him to get it back. Some suffragettes of the day still bemoaned the situation as unfair to women, since mothers had lesser rights to their children than fathers. But...and here's the kicker. The only area where fathers had more rights to children than mothers was in the administration and dispensation of the child's income/property, if any. Since mothers bore no financial obligations to feed, shelter and clothe said child, and fathers bore 100% of those obligations, I don't think this situation was particularly unfair.

      In the UK, this imbalance led some enterprising suffragettes (typically women of income and property) to turn their husbands into involuntary prison cell activists by refusing to pay their own income tax. Ultimately, their husbands were responsible for any and all of their wives' necessities, and that included paying taxes on her income. If he couldn't afford to pay her income tax, he was the one to go to prison for tax evasion.

      While I would agree that the people writing the laws were almost entirely men, the idea that the men who write laws do so to benefit men at the expense of women is laughable when one looks at how quickly women's complaints regarding property and income were mitigated, and how long it took to remove the obligations men had to women to compensate for women's disadvantage in those areas.

      Delete
  8. I don't know why, but somehow i think this lady would completely destroy and humiliate the so-called "feminists" that have now infected the libertarian movement.

    Straughan: "Facts...facts...facts"
    Reisenclutz: "But....privileeeeeeggeeeee.."

    ReplyDelete
  9. A pure 45 minute long BRUTALIST symphony.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I prefer not to disregard the feminist "movement". If women want to work, they should be able to. Simple as that. And I'm sure it is more difficult for them in the workplace. Sexism and harassment are very real things. It is stuff like this that just annoys me:

    http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Federal-judge-Women-should-tone-down-dress-5350951.php

    Just like when women get fired for being too attractive. This is what fuels the feminist battle. Why can't we be a little higher-minded? It'd go a long way.

    Where I draw the line is where most libertarians draw the line: keep government out of it. You cannot mandate higher pay for women. They simply have to "demand" it or increase their value or both. This point is something I try to explain to my male and female friends alike.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And I'm sure it is more difficult for them in the workplace."

      You're an idiot if you believe that. This is blue pill thinking all the way.

      Delete
    2. Is this a touchy subject or something? I don't "believe" anything. The data proves it. They are offered less money and most workplace harassment cases are filed by females. Google it on your own time. Notice how I don't condone any extraordinary measures because they would undoubtedly involve the use of force. Incredible how just acknowledging a problem in the world (yes, women being paid less on average is in fact a problem) merits being called an idiot here.

      Delete
    3. Fixed:

      "Is this a touchy subject or something? I don't know anything."

      "The data proves it."

      Sorry, I have a natural aversion to stupidity. Apparently you have trouble with reality.

      "Incredible how just acknowledging a problem in the world (yes, women being paid less on average is in fact a problem) merits being called an idiot here."

      It's incredible how clueless some people are, like you. And sorry if the shoe fits a little too well.

      Delete
    4. I work for a large multinational corporation in the IT discipline. Ie, in a workplace with skiled men and skilled women. I've observed first hand how female engineers are treated differently and hired differently (not always to their detriment actually). All I'm saying is that I'm glad that as a guy I'll always be offered more money and won't have to worry about what I'm wearing =)

      That's really all it boils down to. Just curious...what have *you* seen? What is your reality? Something tells me with your belligerent attitude and a lack of good points or views of substance, you are yet another troll. Are you the same Mike who said "JW: Troll." above, because that is incredible. Jerry, to my astonishment, has contributed more to the discussion here than you. Thanks for pissing me off without even making me re-think how I feel (I guess that was your intent). I didn't even want to reveal that you had that effect, but then I scrolled up and saw your response to Jerry. Seems like the folks here, especially you, don't know what a troll actually is.

      Delete
    5. Additionally, I am constantly amazed at how childish, arrogant and belligerent the community is here. This is one of the reasons why the libertarian movement has so much trouble getting traction. People like you have no (evident) leadership skills in so far as you are unable to have a constructive discussion. You do not try to explain why someone on the other end is wrong in an attempt to educate them. I'm just one of the 'idiots' that frequents EPJ. And it isn't only you; this is the trend all over the blog.

      Just want to point out that I am hundreds of times more likely to convince a feminist to become libertarian than you are. Even though I am stupid, unrealistic, clueless with a natural and comfortable aversion to stupidity.

      Troll definition off wikipedia
      "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people...with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

      Delete
    6. "I prefer not to disregard the feminist "movement". If women want to work, they should be able to. Simple as that."

      The feminist movement isn't about the opportunity of women to work. The video has made a perfect case for that.

      "And I'm sure it is more difficult for them in the workplace. Sexism and harassment are very real things. It is stuff like this that just annoys me:"

      It is all subjective. Is there sexism is there just over-sensitivity in women as opposed to men? Several women are working where i'm working (where they are either paid the same or more than me, by the way), have to endure sexually themed but not mean spirited jokes, and you know what? They laugh about it. They don't whine or complain. They take it like people with a sense of humor. These men don't look down on women, they don't hate women, they just like kidding around with the women and the women play ball and nothing more is to be said about it. I'm sure that in many cases, women feel "harassed" because they WANT to feel that way, because of perpetual grievances and a politically correct attitude.
      As far as the pay is concerned, if women accept it, it is on them. If they refuse it, and they don't get hired, then they weren't worth it in the first place. Don't blame men for women not being good negotiators. Also, in many cases women aren't as dedicated to their jobs (think about pregnancy leaves).

      "Just like when women get fired for being too attractive. This is what fuels the feminist battle."

      This doesn't fuel the feminist battle at all. As the video makes clear: feminism is socialism with panties. Individual women who make individual choices are useless to feminism. They must fit a mold. Where was the feminist "movement" during the Clinton years? Enough said.

      "Why can't we be a little higher-minded? It'd go a long way."

      I'm not going to be "higher minded" about an ideological movement whose aims are opposite that of individual freedom. I can recognize a great woman, with a great mind, skills and attitude. I can also recognize a whiner who sees sexism behind every tree, who wants the state to use force in her name, and who simply seems to have a chip on her shoulder about men. I will judge individual women as i judge individual men. Feminism is not an individual woman. It's a generally statist, leftist movement.

      "Where I draw the line is where most libertarians draw the line: keep government out of it. You cannot mandate higher pay for women. They simply have to "demand" it or increase their value or both. This point is something I try to explain to my male and female friends alike."

      I agree with you here.

      Delete
    7. "The data proves it. They are offered less money and most workplace harassment cases are filed by females. "

      Data is subject to interpretation, skewing and tampering. Did you even watch the video? The speaker offered clear proof of this fact.
      And even besides this, women filing more complaints is not evidence of anything at all. It could be just as clear evidence of women (relative to men) not having a sense of humor, or being oversensitive or paranoid, or having ulterior motives (money), as it can be of actual harassment. Also take into consideration this: are men harassed less? Or can they take a joke better? Or could it be that they may feel ashamed to file a complaint about a woman harassing them (macho culture)? Are these thoughts taken into consideration in the "data"?
      The video offered PROOF that men are not only abused physically equally as often as women, but abused even more than women are. Yet women file complaints about it more often and are taken more seriously. There is some evidence for you about how data can be skewed.
      The data is likely to be meant to be supportive of the "patriarchy" narrative that when women do something, it is either less maliciously intended or based on "sexism" than when men do the same thing.

      "Incredible how just acknowledging a problem in the world (yes, women being paid less on average is in fact a problem)..."

      Is it also a problem that women almost invariably do not do jobs at the lower and lesser paid end of the scale? Jobs that are dirty, hard, scary, risky etc.?
      Or would this be inconvenient to the feminist complaint?

      My advise to you, since it seems really clear to me that you haven't, is to actually watch the video.
      And by the way, women being paid less on average is not a problem. If women are worth more, they should negotiate for more, instead of accepting the lesser pay. Every business man wants to make a maximum of profit. It is not the duty of an employer to think about a woman's feelings about how men are treated, and their salary gap. People have been trying to scrape the bottom while trying to hire me all the time. It's what they do, trying to save as much money as possible. If women accept the job regardless of this, who is to blame?

      P.S. Purely from a libertarian standpoint, not considering egalitarian viewpoints, why is it a problem anyway that the owner of property gets to determine, how much of it he gives to whom for what reason?

      Delete
    8. "I work for a large multinational corporation in the IT discipline. Ie, in a workplace with skiled men and skilled women. I've observed first hand how female engineers are treated differently and hired differently (not always to their detriment actually)"

      So you're either blind or lying. Got it.

      Delete
    9. You were right, I only watched 10 minutes in the middle of the video. I have finished the whole thing and I agree with most of the content. The laws of the state have subsidized insane behavior and incentivized destruction of the family unit. And these are considered solutions in the feminist movement. It is very screwed up. Women are not necessarily always the victim, as in the second leg of the discussion; that is blue pill thinking and I apologize if I sounded that way. Watching this video doesn't dispel the existence of sexual harassment in the workplace. If you think it does, you are the one with wishful thinking. Come to think of it, the video doesn't do as much for me as you said it would! It is a very good discussion on how the feminist movement has been manipulated under a veil of collectivism.

      "It is all subjective. Is there sexism is there just over-sensitivity in women as opposed to men? Several women are working where i'm working (where they are either paid the same or more than me, by the way), have to endure sexually themed but not mean spirited jokes, and you know what? They laugh about it. They don't whine or complain. They take it like people with a sense of humor. These men don't look down on women, they don't hate women, they just like kidding around with the women and the women play ball and nothing more is to be said about it. "

      "And even besides this, women filing more complaints is not evidence of anything at all. It could be just as clear evidence of women (relative to men) not having a sense of humor, or being oversensitive or paranoid, or having ulterior motives (money), as it can be of actual harassment."

      These comments indicate to me a lack of experience working in a (well functioning) team-based environment with both men and women, where males are relying on females and vice versa. The team works to achieve an end-goal. In such an environment, the ideal dynamic is that the members of the team are blissfully unaware of the sex of the persons they are working with. Most memorably I have seen it when the opposite is the case. I've observed men who are simply incapable of working with females in a well-functioning way, to so much of a degree as it damages the team's progress and hurts morale. And- go figure- those people had an attitude like the above.

      Quite frankly, you guys be ashamed of yourself if you think this is. Sexual harassment is a real problem and not a superficial one, no matter how much you want to dis-regard it. You are part of the reason why feminism exists in the first place. If you are already, or get the opportunity to,
      work with females in the workplace, try treating them with the same respect as you'd treat a male counterpart. It is called taking the high road because you would be acting with dignity and making no assumptions about the person in front of you. Maybe the women at your workplace don't actually like those jokes; perhaps they just don't want to prompt a confrontation. Please, please don't call that "blue pill" thinking. It is just freaking common sense.

      Delete
    10. "The team works to achieve an end-goal. In such an environment, the ideal dynamic is that the members of the team are blissfully unaware of the sex of the persons they are working with."

      You are talking subjective and unrealistic nonsense. It is up to you to determine for yourself what you think is the "ideal" dynamic. But don't pretend you are talking facts.
      When being genuinely abusive, yes it would agree that the "ideal" is to be blissfully unaware of sex. But then again, you PC, sensitive whiny types think many things are "abusive" and therefor think an "ideal" situation would be to be blissfully unaware of sex at all times.
      Aside from some shortcomings in the physical department of the job, the women at my workplace are doing just fine working with the men and vice versa.

      "I've observed men who are simply incapable of working with females in a well-functioning way, to so much of a degree as it damages the team's progress and hurts morale. And- go figure- those people had an attitude like the above."

      Go figure, there are assholes everywhere. Including female ones. I know because *I* have seen this first hand, if you want anecdotes. Deal with it.

      "Sexual harassment is a real problem and not a superficial one, no matter how much you want to dis-regard it."

      I'm not disregarding sexual harassment. I'm disregarding the extent to which it is as big a problem as people like you claim it is. Of course there is sexual harassment. Just like there is racism. But there is a difference between the actual forms of it, and oversensitive types who see it lurking behind every tree and would call it an "institutional problem".

      "You are part of the reason why feminism exists in the first place."

      Now who is acting like the abusive troll?
      If i'm part of the reason "feminism" exists, it only proves how much of a sham it really is. Yes, i'm politically incorrect in that i don't cry me a river over every overstated grievance. Boohoo. And that i see feminism for what it is, a form of man-hating marxism dressed up in a skirt (not talking about calls for equality before the law, which are legitimate).
      The belligerence with which you are now reacting to me for not catering to your every belief and assertion shows i am right about you people being oversensitive and paranoid.

      "If you are already, or get the opportunity to,
      work with females in the workplace, try treating them with the same respect as you'd treat a male counterpart"

      I am. And you know why? Because i treat men like they can take a joke. And they can. And i treat women like they can take a joke. And they can. You are assuming way too much about me from the mere fact that i am calling you out on your sensitive, PC, whiny bullshit.
      The fact that you admit having only seen 10 minutes before stating a case shows just how disinterested you are in facts. Especially since you obviously haven't understand much of anything even after seeing the whole thing.

      "Maybe the women at your workplace don't actually like those jokes; perhaps they just don't want to prompt a confrontation."

      Oh boy, the fucking sensitivity poster is now trying to psychologize the women at MY workplace, whom he doesn't know, has never seen, and are thousands of miles away.
      If that doesn't take the cake for your condescending, down-talking, respectless view of women i don't know what does.

      THIS is why i despise feminists of the female or male versions. The blatant, sickening arrogance that they think they are speaking for all or even most women in the world, just because THEY are so sensitive and wounded and they simply cannot imagine women that are actually strong, independent and having a sense of humor without THEIR help or support.

      Who really is the one with contempt for women?

      Delete
    11. It is true that I don't know what kind of workplace you are in. Life isn't the same for everyone. My bad for imposing on you some grand moral rule of conduct. Do as you please at your discretion.

      But in my world, the thing you admitted to doing is against our code of conduct. And it is for good reason. It isn't professional, it isn't ethical, it isn't sensible, and simply isn't respectful to assume any woman (or any man) can "take a joke" about their looks or activities. Same for men. The only women in my life I will try and physically protect are the ones super close to me. The rest are on their own. But as far as my day to day life is concerned, I will treat them all as equals. I won't comment on their looks and I won't inquire about their activities and I won't communicate to them differently than I would communicate to a guy on my team. I don't care how attractive or unattractive they are. Don't you dare tell me that I hold contempt for women because of that moral tenet. I mean, you can try, but you'll sound like a fool.

      To reinforce a point, you are by definition a sexist. It isn't up for debate. You can hold me in contempt all you want. And to go a bit further, I truly feel that your attitude is so absolutely terrible for attracting most women into libertarianism that it nauseates me. Just like the last guy. You have the audacity to call me arrogant and condescending because I think a woman should have the privilege (not the right) to *not* be subject to jokes and comments about their looks and gender in the workplace? This isn't something the law fixes, it is something humanity fixes. Seriously- SCREW you!

      Fascinating reads
      http://my.ilstu.edu/~mhemmas/LDR%20280/sexual_and_sexist_humor_SHRM-PROP.htm
      http://ejop.psychopen.eu/article/viewFile/217/116
      http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gender/pap/node10.html

      Delete
  11. @9.13 AM
    "The data proves it."

    Most cases are filed by females doesn't mean that there is in fact more harassment of females.
    It could be that the cases are overblown, uncalled for, false, malicious or opportunistic too.
    Women have one kind of problem, men have another.
    I think it is in fact blue pill thinking to focus only one group's problems at the expense of the others. It frames the issue incorrectly; it is an injustice; and it is ideology at work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, Anon 9:13 is too much of a white knight mangina to understand that.

      Delete