One of the things humans do scarily well is generalize. You know "This is what those kinds of people do".I know I have been called out because I've said "libertarians are like this" and then there is outrage amongst libertarians when I do that. Then its kind of amusing when those very same libertarians turn around and generalize about
classes of people I group myself loosely with.And I know there would be absolute hysteria if vast portions of the population were considered to be in total agreement with the current and previous US governments.But this is largely how we view Israel. Some how the west has this vision that Israeli's all support the actions of the Israeli government.You get the idea. We may be all Americans but we don't consider the government representing us or its behaviour.
Yet many people persist in lumping people together.Specifically, feminists. There are all kinds of women saying all kinds of things about feminism and they do not necessarily represent all feminists. Some feminists may say they hate men,
but no doubt there were women who hated men before there ever was a feminist movement. And while I consider myself a feminist, I do not hate men nor consider them my enemy and I am certainly not a feminist who hates men. I
love men. If that wasn't made abundantly clear in this post
, I don't what will convince you. This absurd group on facebook
love to perpetuate the myth that 'all' feminists hate men. My opinion is men and women need each other. We are designed to be a team. I am certain there are women who want to be single or be with a female partner, like men, women have diverse needs and wants too. What I want feminism to do is to let women have as many options as men so that society will be a better place for all of us. As it is clear when we compare and contrast societies, western society is clearly better than societies
were women have less power.
It is my opinion also that feminism
will ultimately lead to the liberation of men too. Why? because I think the stereotypes of men can be as debilitating for men as they are for women. Classically, men have to be heroes, be brave all the time, never feel fear or pain, men must know everything, should never need help unless its totally guy, like borrowing a tool to lift a new motor into the car, never need directions, never be emotional, never need anyone to be there for them or for support, never need affection, never be weak... That must be tough on men! I am sure there are more classical stereotypes men must conform to too. Feel free to tell me.To me feminism is purely about allowing me and my sisters the liberty of have more than the long-term occupation of housewife and mother. Some women want to be something other than nurse, school teacher, or hair dresser and be rewarded equally rather than thought badly for accomplishment.
Women are told their whole life that eventually some man will come along.But I think the stereotypes are mainly in place because of video games, television and the movie industries.
Men have to always be self-reliant, brave and emotion-less on TV, movies and especially in video games. Woman might come in the end where she's young and beautiful and the man gets her as a reward at the end of the film. Very seldom do we see functioning marriages on TV, in movies and especially never on video games.These industries are turning us into stereotypes so they can sell us stuff.
Turning us into stereotypes is better for 1% business because that way they don't have to make a wide variety of stuff for us to purchase, they can churn out the same old pap and we'll eat it up because we want to identify with the main character.
On amazon there is a search criteria called 'billionaire romance' and it brings up 209 pages of search results. No wonder men want to get rich, but the tragic thing is there is little else for women to read but romance novels. No wonder women want to get married (to rich men) - all they read about is women getting married to rich men.The same phenomena is no doubt in place for boys with video games. There are a variety of game types but many of the games involve male characters shooting up monsters or bad guys or whatever and at the end of it the guy feels like a hero for successfully accomplishing a mission. He would get a chick ordinarily, but that would involve dealing with a woman and why do that when you can simply rape her instead. As we see in the picture above.No doubt some of the kids are saying they'd rape her because of peer-group pressure
, and that would make them manly men... right? This is the problem of stereotypes again. More than likely most of these guys would just sleep on the floor. But would all of them? Defenceless people are treated badly
. It is groups like the men's right group on facebook that dismiss rape statistics yet there is clear evidence that there is a strong rape culture present in the country, where confessed rapists get a bit of a tut-tut
. Yet many women I know have told me they were raped yet they never reported it. Why, well clearly why put yourself through the ordeal? The police don't believe you
and if you can get to go to court the rapist even if he confesses or there is a lot of evidence against him results in merely a slap on the wrists as this guy got a mere 30 days jail time
! I am sure some women fabricate rape claims to hurt men, this article estimates that the women who report a rape, those numbers are between 2%-8%
and 90,000 people reported being raped in 2008
. Clearly rape is happening in the US. Just because some people may falsely accuse someone of raping them, it doesn't mean no rape is happening at all. There is another advantage the 1% have in perpetuating divisions in society, it keeps people buying stuff. If you aren't in a caring/loving relationship, you are more likely to fill the voids in your life by spending. Spending money is our big distraction, our new opiate. Don't hate women because they want more options available to them. Because women don't hate men because the women don't want to be teachers/nurses or hair dressers. Even women who've been raped don't necessarily hate men.
A guy walks into a clothes shop and tries on a suit that he'd seen someone else try on. He then walks out of the store with the new suit on. The owner calls the police and charges the guy with shoplifting. They go to court and the guy argues: Someone else tried on the suit before, it was asking to be shoplifted and finally, you let me try it on in the store...No one would accept these ludicrous arguments as an excuse for shoplifting but all these arguments seem to work in rape cases.If she's not a virgin, her experience has left her a wanton nymphomaniac. We all know that's not true.
Most of the time women aren't thinking of sex, they're thinking of what they'll cook for dinner and whether they left the fridge door open. They aren't asking for it.Similarly, women can be wearing anything and men will ask them for sex. Seriously, friends of mine have told me they'd be walking home from work in their McDonalds uniforms and get propositioned for sex.
These are women who are tired from working all day and just want to shower. If a girl has said yes before or lets you go so far, it doesn't give you permission to necessarily go all the way.If she's drunk or otherwise drugged it also doesn't give you permission to use her for anything either. She is not to blame, it is the rapist who is to blame. Men or children would never be accused of 'asking' for it if they were raped.As I have previously written, in ancient Rome, they considered it abhorrent that men couldn't control themselves
. They wanted to distinguish themselves from animals and rape carried the death penalty. Perhaps this is why their empire flourished, because men had to control themselves. Most men know rape is unacceptable. Most men respect women and themselves enough not force themselves upon women.
If you find yourself saying she was asking for it, consider whether you might actually be a rapist yourself.
The world is a messed up place but it's clear to me that its better living in the west than most of the rest of the world. And the biggest difference is based on how we treat women. Women are treated better in western countries. They can own property, they can earn money, they don't require a man to be able to do everything. Tools have been developed to overcome women not being as strong as men. Women have access to as much education as men, women aren't necessarily excluded from certain parts of the work force. Women can have bank accounts, own property, drive and own cars..., in their own right, control their bodies and their future. Women can, and probably most importantly, chose which partner they'll have and can divorce and still have their kids and property. That's in the west. As women's rights have gained ground over the past 200-400 years government has improved too.
Have you ever noticed that the US also treats other countries where women are treated well, better than they treat countries where women aren't treated well?
The more powerful the women are, or how much money they have in that country seems to have direct baring on how good the economy is in the country. As micro-lending has extended into third world countries, those countries economies have improved and become economic players, such as India. (Micro loans go to women in third world countries because they found when giving the loans to men, the men spent the money on rubbish to impress each other, whereas women prioritized the spending on the family and business).In biology it has been proved that a society/species will evolve faster according to the traits the female selects for, even if it increases the likelihood of the demise of the species. For instance, the Irish deer, female Irish deer picked male deer to breed with who had the biggest antlers. In the end the species breed itself into extinction because the antlers were so huge the male couldn't life his head. Pretty tragic right? Another example is the peacock, those huge tails the male displays to attract females make it difficult for the bird to escape predators. But the boys proudly display their tails nevertheless so they get the chance to pass their genes on.So what impact does this have on human society? Quite simply, men will chase what women want and if getting access to women means earning lots of money, then getting money no matter how bad it is for the long term survival of the species will be an extremely desirable trait in the male. And I think we are seeing the effects of women selecting for earning capacity in our society. The environment, the treatment of others, whether its in our own country or in any other country becomes irrelevant, men will chase money because women want rich men. And why do women want rich men? Because we've set up society so that it makes it difficult for women to get access to money themselves.
Yes women can have money, property etc, but its harder for women to get it for themselves. When women have more money, they can chose partners with more desirable traits like kindness, rather than violence.
When ancient Rome banned rape and made it a capital offence, Rome went from a monarchy to a republic and the empire lasted for 500 years
. Rome didn't fail until Constantine adopted Christianity after which it was said instead Lucretia suicided because she enjoyed being raped (!)
What seems to me salient, was in Ancient Rome, before christianity, men had to control themselves and act like civilized human beings. We must beware that the behaviour men starts slipping, and it is with men in America making nonsense statements about rape and pregnancy; and women actively shaming women and trying to take women's rights from them. The treatment of women by a society is paramount to how good that society is. The more rights a woman has, the better that society will be.If things are getting worse in the US, I think its because people are trying to take women's rights from them. The right of women to control their lives and bodies, the right a woman has to prosecute being raped instead of automatically being blamed because she's the victim; the right to equal pay for equal work and safe in their homes from violence are key aspects of a society. If you want to fix the FED, you should put women in-charge of it and if you want to stimulate the economy you should have given women the money. Before you go accusing me of saying men should lose all their power to women, I don't think its a zero-sum game. If women are more powerful, society is better for everyone, not just women. If you think women should be powerless, then try living in Afghanistan or the Congo... I don't know of any woman who wants to be better than men, we just want to be equal. Seriously guys, please don't be so afraid of women, we do like you.
First of all you send out those who have been indoctrinated to believe government is necessarily inefficient and tell them to parrot their beliefs that government is inefficient. They'll be questioned on their beliefs but trust their ingenuity they'll come up with all kinds of rationales to justify their beliefs and this is a benefit to you, i.e. someone like the Koch Bros because they're doing it for free and you don't have to pump your money into your think tank professionals to do it for you - this is a saving.
These guys doing it for free will no doubt be disaffected former GOP taking their cues from the right, so using your usual channels tell your unthinking minions, sheeple, that something operated by the government, something like prisons or schools are necessarily inefficient because they are run by the government.
They'll chant this mantra day and night, 'government is too inefficient to run prisons', 'government is too inefficient to run schools' and the cool thing about sheeple is they will keep talking incessantly so they don't think about what they are saying.
Next thing is GOP elected politicians will engineer funding so that the program will become unworkable and introduce policies that will ensure the program works worse and worse, such as 'No child left behind', close schools for special needs kids and make sure they are funnelled in with the ordinary kids. They'll need special instructors so it'll cost the schools way more.
People will say stuff like: hey I know someone who went to Cambridge University in England from government run schools, but don't worry, the sheeple will conveniently ignore facts that disprove their beliefs, because they might be able to find one private school somewhere that's cheaper to run than a government run school somewhere.
Next thing is make sure there are reporters to prove how bad the situation is.
Force the government into selling off the prisons, schools which ever you want privatized and voila, you have just set up a new 'industrial complex'. Then when it turns out to be a fucking disaster like the last industrial complex crony capitalists set up, in 30 years time the sheeple will be able to do it again with water, forest land, whatever... we the crony-capitalists want.
There have been many forms of slavery and just because it was outlawed it doesn't mean it has ended.
Debt seems to be one of the major form of slavery in the west at the moment. Once you are in debt you *must* keep your job to make sure you can keep making payments on your debt. Whether it's college loans, credit cards or mortgage... having a job is key to maintaining your life.But what I really want to write about is deregulating the labour market as encouraged by the IMF and the world bank.
Often libertarians think the idea of getting rid of the minimum wage is key to getting rid of the problem of unemployment.Sure, getting rid of the minimum wage will get rid of unemployment, I can employ N times as many people for the same cost as employing one person. The people I am employing may not be able to support themselves and their family or their debt with what I am prepared to pay them though. Is there anything wrong with this picture?I've heard people say, well the people don't have to work there. Sure this is true, but where are they going to go instead? At the moment plenty of people are leaving the labour market but no one knows how they are supporting themselves.Anyway lets look at some assumptions about human nature and the human experience.
Assumption 1: it is in everyone's best interests to take care of themselves and their family first.Squirrels squirrel away nuts. Its a common phenomena in the animal kingdom, even o
ur body stores fat for lean times. Similarly we make investments, store extra money, buy extra cans of food at the supermarket for lean times.
We are tribal in nature.We store extra not only for ourselves, but for our family. We don't want to see our kids, spouse, and loved ones hungry or going without. Assumption 2:
to be able to store extra we must seek advantage.There are all kinds of ways to gain access to more 'whatever' we need to survive which will allow us to survive over other individuals and as a result there are all kinds of ways to seek advantage.
More people to gather nuts and berries, being closer to trees that produce more, learning techniques to make our plants more productive, being close to more game so we can eat more meat, having more sons to hunt more meat, not feeding the elderly as much so we can feed the optimal members of the group better... being able to defend our territory, making agreements with other tribes... trading what we have much of for what they have much of... bending agreements to our advantage, bending rules, cheating, whatever it takes to get advantage, because who knows when times will be lean again.Assumption 3: history repeats itself.Living in the tree tops is no different to living in skyscrapers. The survival of our tribe, family, those we love is no different to the survival of our business or corporation. Times will be plentiful and then they'll be lean and then they'll be plentiful, all that matters is we survive the next lean time.
So lets work an example of what happens when we get rid of minimum wage.
Let's say you own an orchard and you bring some people into pick the fruit, you live a long way out so its difficult to leave once you arrive. You tell a bunch of people: hey I'll pay you to pick my fruit, feed you and give you a roof over your heads while you're working for me.
So they are picking the fruit and ask when they're getting paid. You say when the job is finished, meanwhile your fruit is being picked and sold while the workers are being fed and housed. Some are complaining about not being paid - you keep stringing them along for the harvest. Finally you put them on trucks and say when you arrive you'll pay them by check. You arrive and give them worthless checks.
When the workers become irate you use guys with guns to shoot them or call the police and have them arrested. After all, by now you'll have found out the price of everyone who matters in the community. Next year you'll get workers from a different village. Perhaps you'll pay some of them in advance so you'll be able to continue getting workers.
Not everyone will act like that but a deregulated labour market means there's nothing to stop it. And once one guy gets away with it, no doubt others will try to get away with it too. This is just one scenario as to why its slavery. Perhaps the guy would argue that food and lodging was enough pay. But then slaves have always been fed and lodged.
Another way around paying the workers is by claiming they damaged too much fruit and you subtracted the price of the damaged fruit out of their salary. If you don't want to pay someone, you'll find away around it, as is the case with assumption 1 and 2. It is much easier to get out of paying someone if you want than to get the money someone owes you.
And its because of assumption 1, 2 and 3 that there will never be a free market because people will ALWAYS seek advantage. Always. Its in our DNA and we all do it, even saints and Buddhas.
I know people have tried to pass off Romney's gaff about air-plane windows not rolling down was supposedly a joke but seriously, I don't think so. As the huffingtonpost
says here the quote sounds genuinely like the man had no idea about the physics of flight.
'Romney said the biggest problem in a distressed aircraft is that "the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous."'How can a man so ignorant of the world be running for president of the most powerful nation on earth? I seriously don't understand how he can live in this world and be so ignorant of how it operates. But no doubt this explains why he thought it was okay to drive to Canada with a dog strapped to the roof of the car for 12 hours. No doubt Romney is as stupid as much of the population of the US and lead to the current shut down of the Government, where those elected just don't understand the complexity of the system. I have often wondered what at all do the GOP bring to the country and as far as I can tell, they bring nothing at all but shame and embarrassment.
While I blame MSM for taking the stupid party seriously in the first place, it is necessary to think of a solution to the excess of stupid stupid people the GOP throw up as potential leaders to this country.
One solution is to remove the economic incentive to become president. It was clear that Romney was only in it because it would pad his pockets because he refused to release his tax returns to the public.I think one of the things we need to do is to make insider trading illegal for elected officials, have them declare publicly all sources of income for family and dependents and have the government pay for election campaigns
. Of course, already elected officials won't ever let this become law so the best way to implement it is to have politicians vow to do this.
Dear Mrs Hall
,Years ago I went out to grab some coffee with a guy I knew and while we were out we bumped into a friend of his.His friend was about the most charming women I had ever met. She was an artist, she was/is a sculptor and she had lived the most fascinating life.She was gracious. She was a vegetarian, however if you served her meat, she'd eat it because she thought if someone went to the trouble to prepare a meal for you, you should have the good grace to eat it. This was particularly salient to me at the time because I took someone to a meal where the host prepared some dessert and this person refused to eat it because it had sugar in it. Not that this person was diabetic or anything, he'd eat chocolate mousse all the time, he just wanted to be rude/ungracious.
I was so ashamed and embarrassed that I brought this person to this meal. Anyway, this lovely lady, was/is kind, well-mannered, well travelled, educated, sophisticated, the kind of woman any man should count himself extremely lucky to know - I know I thought I was lucky to meet her.
She was the kind of person who'd experienced much in her life and survived to become a brilliantly cut diamond. As we got
to know each other I found out she'd worked as a prostitute.The person who I met her through,
who had asked me several times to sleep with him and was often going to Thailand where he was quite able to afford to rent prostitutes for a week at a time, said to me after he found out she'd worked as a prostitute, "I am so glad she told us that because I was thinking she'd make an excellent girlfriend." I turned around and stared at him. My gut reaction was, "She is too good for you".No I am not a lesbian, but she was someone I was proud to think of as my friend.
Unfortunately I lost touch with her but I think of her often.Now Mrs Hall, what are your sons going to be like?
Will they be good enough for my friend? However, Mrs Hall I do know I would never consider you my friend because your attitude is disgusting.
By now most people have read the story of Antoinette Tuff
and how she was kind to a man wielding a gun and saved a school full of kids from being shot. Reading what Tuff said was touching, she told him about how hard her life had been and I am left wondering if this is what is key to making people kind? People who know how bad life can be who can draw on whatever it is that gave them strength to get them through the tough patches so they can survive and shine their light upon the rest of us when life is tough for us.Is this one of the fundamental dynamics of our society is to make life so tough that those who cannot cope commit suicide and those who do
survive, become bright shining lights to the rest of us?There is nothing new to kindness being a solution to many of the worlds problems, today I read This is Water
. David Foster Wallace is an example of those who don't survive. He suicided because of depression.I wonder if there is so much depression because people don't feel needed, or lonely? No doubt, because people will suicide if they don't, assuming they are numb enough to the horror of their own death. But if they aren't quite numb enough, they are very likely feeling depressed. How do we make people like like they are needed and useful after their view of relationships has been distorted by television?
Is this why we give women so much shit, so they can be kind mothers? Because we do dump so much shit on women. And perhaps this is why people like the Dalai Lama
thinks western women can save the world. Western men rule the world and it is only us western women who can control our men
There is nothing in the world that infuriates me more than the Dems are the same as GOP rhetoric that abounds mostly from men because they don't think women's issues are important.And then those women's issues are dismissed as merely abortion.Democrats not only have protected women's rights regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood, but also against violence, equal pay for equal work and many others. Next time you want to say that the Democrats are the same as the GOP, realize you are dismissing 50% of the population as completely irrelevant. How arrogant is that? While there are many things about the Democrats that annoy the hell out of me, they do defend women's rights. Not only women's right to control their own future, ie with abortion, they also
demand equal pay for women
and care about violence against women. I don't like the hounding of people like Snowden, Manning, Assange, Greenwald, but the outcry regarding four men - yes thats right, only four men, was astounding, compared to the time men fight to defend women's civil liberties that effects 50% of the population. My male friends find rape appalling yet I didn't hear much complaint from them when GOP men were saying nonsense about 'legitimate rape'. Next time you say Dems are the same as GOP remember you are making an incredibly sexist statement. Next time you say abortion is only a talking point, remember you are talking about destroying not only women's lives but potentially her baby's life too if she chooses to raise it, and again dismissing these poor women's lives as irrelevant.
There will always be some kind of power struggle. Originally power came from the belief in God and those who were perceived to be closest to God had the power.Then came Kings who were anointed by God, or anointed by the people, people believed them to be powerful so they were powerful.
Meanwhile there is always might-makes-right. Those with the biggest, most powerful weapons, most strength were the most powerful. Furthermore there are the
people with the most resources, whether its land, or money that makes them powerful or a set of skills that people desire/require that makes them in demand, such as intelligence.
Our society has developed tools to control those with power. Girls, often the least powerful members of society have one of the greatest assets, sex. So girls were told not to have sex before marriage to preserve her power to score a man to take care of her. In return for taking care of the house and bearing the man's children, she was given access to his money and his strength to defend her and her kids. Of course that control also maintains the status quo.To counteract the power of kings, we developed democracy.
To counteract the power of the clergy, we developed alternative religions. Some people would argue that eventually these choices also ended up maintaining the status quo also.
To counteract physical power, we developed ranged weapons, however we still want boots on the ground so we still have no way around men's upper-body strength as the final last ditch effort to save the tribe (ie when the shit really hits the fan, women and kids were meant to hide inside while the chivalrous men fought to the death to protect us).The US founding fathers started the revolution because of corporations and set up regulations to keep corporations under control however corporations manipulated their way out of the yoke that the founding fathers put them under.
Now they are pretty much controlling government, like its controlling an army of zombies
, making the US go to war for access to oil reserves, orchestrating free trade agreements to destroy regional industries, interfering with allies and other countries to benefit the 1% or corporations. So in the end we are in the same predicament. The problem is the dynamic that exists between those with power and those with much less of it. One friend suggests we remove Limited Liability on corporations.
I haven't heard any other solutions other than govt absorbing corporations that are too big to fail but then corporations that are too important to the operation of the country should be seen as our services, they should be operating to benefit us, instead of stockholders or probably more relevant, the principals of the corporation. The CxOs have all the power and none of the responsibility. Ever notice when you ring a corporation to complain, you get someone who just works there? Don't swear at them, its not their decision and there is no way you get to swear at the CxO, they're out playing golf.
Over the past 250 years women's power has been increasing in the west. And with it government has been improving. However there are many forces at work. Society was set up to work for men as they work best in hierarchical situations. Some women cope by becoming mini-males and working within the hierarchies. Then there are the reactionary women who have doubled down on slut-shaming. While our society is in a state of deep flux, power shifting, there is no comparison between the life in the west and other parts of the world. It is clear that women gaining power greatly improves society. However we have a problem that men in the west have started losing responsibility and I think thats because women haven't been making men shoulder blame.Essentially, there are those with power and those without power. Mechanisms were in place to maintain the status quo and something has to happen to change the ratio of power. Is what giving you power also destroying you?Men feel threatened by women gaining power because they have the feel there is conservation of 'power', the zero-sum game.
Men feel threatened that women gaining power means men are losing power, because the rationale is there is only so much power in society to go around. Perhaps they feel threatened at work with additional competition? If women have more money, men won't be needed as much? I don't know what the reasoning is. But if you look at societies where men have all the power, the society is floating somewhere down in the toilet of humanity. The worse the society is, the least amount of power women have and men have all the power. Usually this means the government has completely disintegrated.When we are altering power ratios, we have to be careful how it is altered otherwise
you have situations like that of the Russian revolution, from the Tzar to Lenin but more ominously, Stalin. When Iran ousted its shah, it got the Ayatollah. Taking out a dictator never leads to a stable society, as we see in Libya, Iraq. Libertarians undermining government in the 1980s with statements like 'government is inefficient' has lead to the crony-capitalism we have now, where both the Democrats are chasing corporate funding for election campaigns and the GOP are pretty much only interested in serving corporations. While there is much
interest complaining about the evils of the management of our society, it is clear that changing the status quo must be done carefully.