Thanks for your note. I'm glad you found it useful. As you probably noticed, it leaves a lot unsaid. When I get around to it, I'm going to add a "Part II" about more recent materialist feminist theory (esp. Kuhn and Wolpe, Rosemary Hennessy), 3rd-Wave feminism etc.
Thanks for your response. I think you're the first of my former students to post! I think radical feminists seek to build a parallel set of separatist social structures that can compete with patriarchy's sociocultural power. I'm not sure about economic power. An example of this strategy might be Mary Daly's courses at Boston College, where she denied admission to male students.
This is a good distinction.... thanks for your comments. In my concern to distinguish between marxist and radical feminist accounts of oppression, maybe I've overstated the radical feminist position.
@rlstrick So is the distinguishing factor between radical and Marxist feminists that radical feminists believe that patriarchy can only be overcome via new superstructures, whilst Marxist feminists believe that the economic base which gives rise to those superstructures must be overcome first? (Presumably because the superstructure will only develop in the same manner once more if the economic base isn't addressed?
@Verlch liberalism is ultimately happy with capitalism, albeit with a system of government checks and balances on the free market. marxism implies that capitalist structures are inherently flawed, not an end in themselves. being a liberal seems to correlate positively with an increase in belt size.
I think the most logically consistent materialist position on gay marriage is anticipated by Engels, who argued against "straight" marriage. "Marriage" as an institution is designed to protect patriarchy and patrimonial inheritance rights, and it inhibits free association. If no "marriage" of this sort was legally privileged, people could form associations for useful functions such as mutual support, child-raising, etc.
Actually Shazam I find that swapping white for female, and black for male reveals their big0try much better. Example of a standard editorial with said swapping: "Studies show that white businesses fail at slightly higher numbers than black businesses. It is the job of government to prop up white businesses." Obviously there should not be government help for *only* female businesses but all struggling businesses. Read any feminist-leaning editorial and do that swap, and your eyes will be opened.
to pursue a professional career. Therefor, the opportunity has existed for 40yrs. to be - "sitting at our ease & speaking of physics, mathematics, the atom, astronomy, relativity, geography" etc. Why then, has that not occurred to a relevant degree? But rather, simply the transfer of mens money has continued? Ironically, Woolf mentions fields of science. Of which statistics indicate that women simply have not been nearly as interested in listening to science lectures as much as to Oprah.
@Jabes1966 Try this: "In the UK parliment, the UK being a relatively 'advanced' first world nation, there are 126 white* MP's and 519 male MPs. The population is 50/50. This is generally justified in terms of the greater inherent leadership abillity and or ambition of the black candidates." You see your analogy looks totally ridiculous, no matter which side of the debate you're on.
@clarkewi Why do non-poor people always have that ignorant assumption that being poor equates to being stupid, criminal, and/or unhappy? The only truth to that is when saying it to poor people causes them to think, feel, and act that way when they otherwise would have more comfortably settled into a less materialistic life. Stop spitting on poor people.
"In the human species, individual possibilities depend upon the economic and social situation". Its no wonder feminism ended up "killing two birds with one stone". Politics & the legal system have been altered in ways which have resulted in taking mens money and giving it to women. In effect, the "possibilities" & opportunities have gone from the men to the women, with the transferred money. One critical question remains. Since its been 40 yrs. since the 60's that women have been at liberty
"In the human species, individual possibilities depend upon the economic and social situation". Its no wonder feminism ended up "killing two birds with one stone". Politics & the legal system have been altered in ways which have resulted in taking mens money and giving it to women. In effect, the "possibilities" & opportunities have gone from the men to the women, with the transferred money.
go outside. stand on the street. crap in your pants. then as loud as you can, announce it to the neighborhood. im not asking you to do this, im TELLING you what to do. now do it!!! do it now!!!!
Thanks for your note. I'm glad you found it useful. As you probably noticed, it leaves a lot unsaid. When I get around to it, I'm going to add a "Part II" about more recent materialist feminist theory (esp. Kuhn and Wolpe, Rosemary Hennessy), 3rd-Wave feminism etc.
Thanks for your response. I think you're the first of my former students to post! I think radical feminists seek to build a parallel set of separatist social structures that can compete with patriarchy's sociocultural power. I'm not sure about economic power. An example of this strategy might be Mary Daly's courses at Boston College, where she denied admission to male students.
This is a good distinction.... thanks for your comments. In my concern to distinguish between marxist and radical feminist accounts of oppression, maybe I've overstated the radical feminist position.
@rlstrick So is the distinguishing factor between radical and Marxist feminists that radical feminists believe that patriarchy can only be overcome via new superstructures, whilst Marxist feminists believe that the economic base which gives rise to those superstructures must be overcome first? (Presumably because the superstructure will only develop in the same manner once more if the economic base isn't addressed?
@Verlch liberalism is ultimately happy with capitalism, albeit with a system of government checks and balances on the free market. marxism implies that capitalist structures are inherently flawed, not an end in themselves. being a liberal seems to correlate positively with an increase in belt size.
I think the most logically consistent materialist position on gay marriage is anticipated by Engels, who argued against "straight" marriage. "Marriage" as an institution is designed to protect patriarchy and patrimonial inheritance rights, and it inhibits free association. If no "marriage" of this sort was legally privileged, people could form associations for useful functions such as mutual support, child-raising, etc.
What is ecofeminism?
@rlstrick wow thats an amazing idea
Very illuminating, thank you. :P
Actually Shazam I find that swapping white for female, and black for male reveals their big0try much better. Example of a standard editorial with said swapping:
"Studies show that white businesses fail at slightly higher numbers than black businesses. It is the job of government to prop up white businesses."
Obviously there should not be government help for *only* female businesses but all struggling businesses. Read any feminist-leaning editorial and do that swap, and your eyes will be opened.
to pursue a professional career. Therefor, the opportunity has existed for 40yrs. to be -
"sitting at our ease & speaking of physics, mathematics, the atom, astronomy, relativity, geography" etc.
Why then, has that not occurred to a relevant degree? But rather, simply the transfer of mens money has continued? Ironically, Woolf mentions fields of science. Of which statistics indicate that women simply have not been nearly as interested in listening to science lectures as much as to Oprah.
@Jabes1966
Try this:
"In the UK parliment, the UK being a relatively 'advanced' first world nation, there are 126 white* MP's and 519 male MPs. The population is 50/50. This is generally justified in terms of the greater inherent leadership abillity and or ambition of the black candidates."
You see your analogy looks totally ridiculous, no matter which side of the debate you're on.
@clarkewi Why do non-poor people always have that ignorant assumption that being poor equates to being stupid, criminal, and/or unhappy? The only truth to that is when saying it to poor people causes them to think, feel, and act that way when they otherwise would have more comfortably settled into a less materialistic life. Stop spitting on poor people.
good vid
Wow, this guy's really small. I mean, he IS very smart, but small. Look at him.
"In the human species, individual possibilities depend upon the economic and social situation".
Its no wonder feminism ended up "killing two birds with one stone". Politics & the legal system have been altered in ways which have resulted in taking mens money and giving it to women. In effect, the "possibilities" & opportunities have gone from the men to the women, with the transferred money.
One critical question remains. Since its been 40 yrs. since the 60's that women have been at liberty
Let'm build their society - just don't force me to participate. Of course I'm a dirty anarchist.
"In the human species, individual possibilities depend upon the economic and social situation".
Its no wonder feminism ended up "killing two birds with one stone". Politics & the legal system have been altered in ways which have resulted in taking mens money and giving it to women. In effect, the "possibilities" & opportunities have gone from the men to the women, with the transferred money.
go outside. stand on the street. crap in your pants. then as loud as you can, announce it to the neighborhood.
im not asking you to do this, im TELLING you what to do. now do it!!! do it now!!!!