Theory Nerds!

[strat-0]

But, for anyone interested, I'll take the latter first. Some commentators have suggested that feminism is done with and over because it *already* got everything it wanted - that women have achieved equal rights (this, of course, refers to Western democracies - if you take a global view it's obvious that women don't have even formal equality in numerous countries) and that we are now on a level playing field with men. If that's the case, then, women who still identify as feminists are either confused, whiners, or trying to secure special protections above and beyond men.

I think there are still fairness issues to address. There are still glass ceilings, discrepancies in pay, and other issues. But it is always easier to address and rectify gross violations than the more subtle ones. I think we must remain vigilant and strive for equity, although I think all of us face some type of unfairness in life because of who we are. Those who want to do the watching won’t get any flak from me.

Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that men and women really are very different. They are not “equal.” To say that equality will be reached when there are an equal number of men raped by woman would be rather absurd – this is an example of how we are hard-wired differently. Will we have justice when women can bench press as much as men? How much of the difference is environmental and how much is genetic? I think more of it is genetic than many care to admit. Women are more nurturing, maybe because they’ve raised the babies for thousands of years. Studies show that men have better visio-spacial abilities, maybe so their spears would hit their marks (the lousy hunter went hungry, didn't get the girl, and thus didn't make lots of babies). But those are generalities; there are now some fine female NASCAR drivers, for example, and if they can do it, and want to do it, then let ‘em go for that checkered flag.

I think the equal rights issue should be about freedoms of choice, and here is where I think the feminist movement did a great disservice to its gender and society. I believe that women who want formal employment should be able to choose any occupation they like and can do well in, and they should be afforded the same opportunities and compensation as men. Where the movement went astray was in making women feel that those who chose traditional roles were “wrong” and somehow hurting their gender while they missed out and passed up what they were entitled to. Many are also finding that it ain’t no picnic out there.

There are always going to be men who are assholes, just as there have always been, but the traditional roles do work for many people, people who are happy and find their lives rich and fulfilling. Some would say it’s an easier and more comfortable lifestyle. It seems to work pretty well when it’s done right. I also think that women have always had much more power than is apparent on the face of it.

…Divorces are almost always more financially shattering for women than for men because, yet again, we say, well hey, the guy is the one who actually made money, he's the one who actually worked.

I’ve actually seen it work out in the reverse more often.

Again this comes from our refusal to see domestic labor as real work, equally deserving of compensation. This blindness is so embedded in our culture and our society, it's not something we consciously think about, it just feels natural, the way things have to be.

I don’t think most men or our society in general really feels that way. There are men who try to use that angle for leverage, but as I said, there are always going to be assholes. Think of how many times sitcoms etc. have used the storyline of a husband and wife swapping roles for a period of time. Each thinks it’s going to be so easy for them, but they find out how difficult life is for their spouse. The man invariably has the worse time of it, though.

One thing I've noticed in my industry: women are in no way locked out from being automotive technicians; in fact, they are recruited, yet I see fewer going into the field than any other field I can think of. What is the reason? I'm not sure, but it really looks as if they just plain don't like it. Nothing wrong with that.

[strat-0]

Someone stop me before I edit again.

[strat-0]

I said, "Think of how many times sitcoms etc. have used the storyline of a husband and wife swapping roles for a period of time. Each thinks it’s going to be so easy for them, but they find out how difficult life is for their spouse. The man invariably has the worse time of it, though."

Help me out, literary types; doesn't this theme go way back? I don't recall anything like it in Shakespeare, although Much Ado about Nothing pretty much makes all the men look like doofs.

(BTW, that's "husband and wife, swapping roles," and not "husband and wife swapping.")

[Mary]

Just a few things....

re: women getting more financially shattered than men by divorces. strat-o, whatever your personal observations, I can assure you that the statistics are totally overwhelming on this. Your experiences are unusual, to say the least.

As for the perception that domestic labor is not real work, I'm claiming that this is an unspoken ideological assumption, not a conscious sentiment that anyone would vigorously defend, so of course you're not going to find people who go around loudly denigrating domestic labor. The point is that our ideological assumptions come out in the way we talk about other issues - my example was of course how we relentlessly construct single welfare mothers as necessarily "lazy" and never consider that they might not be working full-time (as many welfare mothers do work part-time, incidentally) out of a commitment to their children, not out of sloth.

But, in any case, this topic seems largely exhausted, so I'll try to think of another one to throw out a bit later

Cheers,
M

[Ampage]

I haven't seen many mothers on welfare not working so they can spend time with the young'ns, but thats just me. C'mon Mary, thats really stretching it, don't you think? If you want the best for your kids, you do whats best. I am sure there are the various cases where, by working, they don't make enough to justify going without seeing their kids more, and getting the welfare cut. But for the most part, thats not the case. Especially where I am from, where welfare has been drastically cut. Even a 6 dollar an hour job with bennies is gonna do you better than staying on the dole. Maybe this all stems from the time I was at the check out and a smartly dressed girl was buying yummy steak, A- 1, salad in a bag, etc. and all on "the card". Pissed me right off considering I have to search for buys and deals, and Ms. My Tax Dollars just shops it up. I know she isn't the norm, but still, there are not many out there who couldn't be doing SOMETHING!

[Kensterberg]

Where the hell are you finding $6 an hour jobs with benefits? I'm seeing lots of jobs that pay more (and require a lot more in the way of skill and/or education) but still don't offer benefits. If a person has to stay home in order to have state health care -- which is to say any sort of health care! -- than that may be "the best thing" for them and their family.

[Ampage]

Dood, fast food places have benefits. Not all, but alot, just have to seek them out. And I completely understand why you all want to defend people, but in actuality, there are a shitload of people doing nothing, way more than the ones that have no choice.

[strat-0]

I wouldn't doubt your veracity, Mary, but I'm sure you know about the three kinds of liars (liars, damn liars, and statisticians). I could see situations where a man can continue in a job or career while a woman who hadn't worked would have a hard time getting quality employment. But in nearly every case I've ever heard or seen, the woman gets the house (and kids), and the man gets to basically make the payments on it indefinitely, while living in a one bedroom apartment. Regardless of the "cause." I know that is not an all-inclusive demographic or general cross-section of all of society, but it sure as hell happens all the time (not that it ever happened like that to me).

Yeah, throw us bone - we've chewed this one pretty good.

[chrisfan]

Two things before this one finishes dying ...

The notion that you "can't" work in order to get state health care still does not answer to the issue that parenthood encompasses two responsibilities ... providing and nurturing.

Second, I think that Strat-o's point about men being screwed over by divorces stems straight from Mary's statistics. The statistics are built over a much longer range of time, and the courts now are trying to right those wrongs. I've heard of several cases recently where a man who has been laid off from his job gets no leeway in child support payments to his ex who is re-married to a man gainfully employed and making more than the unemployed child supporters was before getting laid off. Bottom line ... divorce screws over both parties financially big time, especially when there are kids involved.

[Ampage]

The notion that you "can't" work in order to get state health care still does not answer to the issue that parenthood encompasses two responsibilities ... providing and nurturing.


I am totally confused at this statement. What are you asking?

[chrisfan]

Ampage said:

I am totally confused at this statement. What are you asking?

I made the point a couple of days ago that parenting is about providing for your children as much as it is nurturing your children. In an attempt to illustrate the absurdity of handing over the parental responsibility of provider to the government, I suggested handing over the nurturing responsibility instead. So, by making that statement, I was just pointing out that all the "yeah but"s in the world could be thrown out, but it still didn't answer to the need for parents to do BOTH.

[Mary]

OK, I finally thought of something else to talk about. I'm not entirely sure this really belongs here, but it seems so divorced from most of the issues we talk about on current events, I thought I'd dump it here...

So I've been reading this book about Los Angeles, City of Quartz by Mike Davis. It's a primary example of what city planning academics call Radical Urban Theory, as it combines critiques of capitalism and institutional racism with very detailed examinations of things like city zoning policy, homeowners' associations, water and power providers, and modern architecture. In any case I'm now in the section of the book that examines L.A.'s Slow Growth Movement, and what I find really interesting here is the way the political alignments just don't make sense along our traditional ideological assumptions. Basically L.A. has been enmeshed in a decades-long battle between homeowners and developers, where the homeowners want to maintain their little suburban havens free of things like urban blight, ugly tall buildings, excessive traffic, pollution, etc etc, and the developers obviously want to keep building building building. I read this account and I just despair at the fact that everyone seems awful to me - the homeowners are often motivated by race and class exclusionism (Davis traces the history of the homeowners' associations back to the restrictive covenants of early 20th century, when homeowners banded together and signed contracts promising never to sell any property in their neighboroods to "colored' folk). On the other hand the developers are often oblivious to environmental concerns and always happy to "pave paradise and put up a parking lot", in the immortal words of Joni Mitchell.

Suddenly two incredibly weird alliances sprung up: the homeowners joined forces with environmentalists, and the developers joined forces (sort of - this is to a much lesser extent) with the lower middle classes - i.e. non property owners who rent apartments, and wanted more multi-family residencies in the city where they could live. Amazingly (and of course for cynical self-serving reasons) developers started writing editorials in the L.A. Times excoriating homeowners for their narrow class and race provincialism, and accusing them of using "environmentalism" as a cover for their efforts to prevent poorer people and racial minorities from moving into their neighborhoods. Environmentalists then shot back at the developers, defending the homeowners as L.A.'s noble last stand against unsustainable growth and corporate greed.

I read this and I just have no fucking clue what to think about any of it. There don't seem to be any good guys in the story - everyone comes off as a self-interested hypocrite. The only thing I come away with is a sense that sprawl is an absolute disaster, and that suburbia is a completely pathological way of organizing space, but I'm at a complete loss to imagine viable alternatives this late in the game.

I don't have a specific question here, I'd just be curious to hear what other people think about suburbia, sprawl, and how we should organize neighborhoods and living space. What's the moral of this story? Why is Los Angeles (just as the most glaring example, but it's happening everywhere) turning into such an infernal monster, and what can possibly be done about it?

Cheers,
M

[strawman]

I'm no theory nerd I'm afraid...but my take on this is that the homeowners are the only ones with anything to lose here...property values tumble and when your asset is everything, you'll use any method to protect its value....who wants a multi storey apartment block built on the next door section..transient population, I can only assume more crime or at least more petty incidents and annoyances that suburbia doesnt have...
Yeah the old NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome...still extrapolate the problem and should you accept a prison or rubbish tip next door, if when you purchased a property it was zoned low density residential...I think not as you will have paid a premium for your property...
Fuck developers and rental occupants...find somewhere else...start a new suburb if it worries you that much...I'd object to a light and sun hogging tower block going up next to me...as I would a rubbish tip or prison....i've got my life savings invested in a low density residential area...even if it is only a 3 wood to the main Street....
two words...fuck off....

[luke]

I dunno if this qualifies for this place, but it didn't seem to fit in on CE and I figure this board only lives in spurts, anyways, so...

I just got done writing a paper on public relations' response to anti-corporate activism. Ran across this paragraph I really liked in an issue of frontline:

"Companies are everywhere portraying themselves as social movements. They're hip. Ironically, it's the hip companies that the anti-global people hate. Nike, Apple, Starbucks. They hate them because these companies have appropriated for themselves the language of the bohemian culture and have made a mockery of their leftist values."

Also came across a great article elsewhere that contrasted Michael Jordan and Kathie Lee Gifford in their association with industry that supports sweatshops. Talks about how the goodness in the male is centered, and so Jordan can say, "It's Nike's business, not mine," but our culture portrays the goodness in women as outward and motherly, so Gifford can't use the same scape-goat. She's got to go out and prove that she's good, campaigning against sweatshops and what-not.

Pretty interesting stuff I learned or got a better perspective on while writing this paper...that's not something that happens often...

[RocDoc]

Totally agreed with Straw's take on 'sprawl's' sometimes weedlike predatory proliferation...a proliferation which stomps all over the reasons someone might look long and hard, far and wide for 'stability', for a sustainable investment and a more predictable location-related lifestyle which I, IMO, think should be pretty much a 'right'....that someone putting up apartment towers directly in front of the view of the woods which led you to fall in love with your home and your neighborhood IS something which you've got a right to squawk about, as ephemeral and often as finely nuanced as such things can be.

NIMBY indeed.

Here urban sprawl and suburban sprawl have become interchangeable, with only the $750,000 subdivisions smack dab in the middle of a cornfield, 50-60 miles out, being ones which fit truly fit 'suburban' any more.

In the US, you should have some recourse to be protected from the architectural monstrosity....but via fair housing laws, anyone CAN live anywhere, halfway houses, rehab residences gotta go somewhere...and people will always try to maintain this ephemeral 'charm' which first brought them into a location, restricting the entry of things (very often successfully) depending on the level of disturbance and the level of restriction of the established homeowners' liberties, enjoyment of life and their rights NOT to have sex offenders and such, possibly endangering them or their kids... recidivism is a bitch, regardless of how successfully an inmate has possibly 'paid his/her debt'....

Still, the other side of the coin is the 'gentrification' of city neighborhoods, which, in Chicago is basically a reclamation of neighborhoods' worth of homes by people actually closer to the social stratum of the persons who originally built those houses 80 years ago. Those were of necessity people with money, with jobs, often also being the cutting edge entrepreneurs of 'olde Chicago' who saw those neighborhoods as THE places to put all of their dreams....while the rank-in-file were the tenement dwellers.
At the time, THAT was 'sprawl' and now with the shift BACK to desireabilty of living in an urban environment...the lower purchase prices attract those with plans to build themselves as close to a dreamhome as they can, who'd rather take a chancy, dicey neighborhood and show a little bit of belief that better time are ahead for this place while sinking a load on physical improvements and amenities.
Now where does this shift into a bad thing?
Increased property value on apparently 'underused/underutilized' properties,
then causing an increase in valuation,
then causing an increase in the neighborhood's real estate taxes....
I mean you WANT for people to care for their property, keep things up, make them nice and then the anti-gentrificationists presume to dictate how far 'clean-up fix-up' should go?

~

Fuck, I've got no end to this and it's time to go...

Oh, and re ekul's citing of 'false portrayals' of corporate 'behemoths' as socially responsible and hip...I see it as being damned if you, damned if you don't, because their intent is ALWAYS going to be suspect in some way, strictly for the fact of their size and success...much in the same way that 'the world' will always fault the US's motives regardless...