Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Sculptor]

Immanuel Can wrote;

The whole idea of "class" comes from Marxist analysis, though. For the right, "class" is not the axis on which things divide: it's competence. The conservative or libertarian positions reward effort and achievement, rather than "class" or "victim status," and they do so regardless of race. For the "right," difference is a function not of racism or sexism, but rather of achievement.

There were social classes long before Marx! Have you heard of the Feudal System?

Of course there were.

Before Marx, classes existed, sure. Sometimes they even fought in a sort of class-focused way, as in the French Revolution. Marx didn't invent the idea of class, at all. He borrowed it.

But it was Marx who made "class" the determinative category of all analysis, all political and social philosophy, made economics the lone important dynamic of relations, and called "praxis" (work) the sole means of human "self-actualization."

Borrowed it?

In the same way Leonardo Da Vinci "borrowed" the idea that you can make a picture with paint.
He did not make class determinative; he showed how it was throughout the world but particularly in Britain.
He was well aware tha caste and class had been subjugating people for thousands of years.

[Sculptor]

It was a fair comment, there's no point getting angry and abusive again. Your worldview that women should find their fulfilment by performing duties for the family is shared with the Taliban.

Is that what I said, or is that what infer? This is a complex topic which has profound effects on all people.

What I am saying is that the transition from a nuclear family supported social system to one that places the reproduction of capital at the top of the pyramid has not worked out so great. Do you disagree with this?

What is your evidence and what is the actual case you are trying to make?

It's not as if there is only one thing that has changed about our society in the hundred or so years since the rise of mass produced motor cars changed everything about our cities, the radio and then the television and then the internet changed the rate at which our society could propagate new ideas, and since the advent of labour saving devices such as refrigerators washing machines and vacuum cleaners completely altered the dynamics of "household management". So what have you done to correct for external factors that might skew your analysis?

I do not think he is clever enough to have thought of that.
His method seems to be as follows.
1. Think of something I do not like (in this case equality for women)]
2. Think of all the bad things that I think have happened since it started.
3. Attribute all the woes and horrors to the thing I do not like.

It's a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

But let's look at those ills he attributes to female emancipation! Are they even valid?

The bedrock of any society [the nuclear family] has been devastated by divorce, absentee mothers, disappeared fathers, technology, a host of metal health disorders, and other factors that have rendered this institution a mere phantasm of its former self. Contributing to this precipitous decline has been an egregious lack of support from other institutions, particularly Education.

Educational standards have rocketed in the last 100 years, for example. Need I go on?

[Immanuel Can]

The present differential in global distribution of wealth is such that there is going to be either a major blood bath or disjointed murderous regimes.

Where? Where is this "bloodbath" set to break out? There are already a ton of muderous regimes around.

But I think you've bought into old-style Marxism, and nobody...even the Neo-Marxists...believe in that, today. It turned out that Marx was wrong. That's why the Neo-Marxists had to drop "class" as the issue, and switch to things like "gender," "race" and "orientation." They couldn t save classical Marxism...it was dead. They needed a new group to allege as "oppressed," because class mobility is too much of a reality, and new dynamics to explain it, other than economics, for the same reason.

Well, that and the fact that classical Marxism had murdered millions in the most savage ways possible and had crippled every economy it had touched. After that, classical Marxism became just too much of a hard sell.

[Immanuel Can]

[Marx] did not make class determinative; he showed how it was throughout the world but particularly in Britain.

Nope, he didn't.

Read your history, I guess. Marx himself was bitterly disappointed when his revolution did not break out in Industrial England. When it appeared, it was in backward, feudalist Russia, and later, in largely-agrarian China, and was both bloody and tyrannical, not by the dynamics he had hoped, and not leading to a worker's utopia at all but to the gulag, the re-education camp, and later, to economic crisis for both.

Even the Neo-Marxists today do not support classical Marxism. Nobody sensible does.

[Sculptor]

[Marx] did not make class determinative; he showed how it was throughout the world but particularly in Britain.

Nope, he didn't.

Nope what??

Read your history, I guess. Marx himself was bitterly disappointed when his revolution did not break out in Industrial England. When it appeared, it was in backward, feudalist Russia, and later, in largely-agrarian China, and was both bloody and tyrannical, not by the dynamics he had hoped, and not leading to a worker's utopia at all but to the gulag, the re-education camp, and later, to economic crisis for both.

Even the Neo-Marxists today do not support classical Marxism. Nobody sensible does.

You are talking bollocks.

[Immanuel Can]

Read your history, I guess. Marx himself was bitterly disappointed when his revolution did not break out in Industrial England. When it appeared, it was in backward, feudalist Russia, and later, in largely-agrarian China, and was both bloody and tyrannical, not by the dynamics he had hoped, and not leading to a worker's utopia at all but to the gulag, the re-education camp, and later, to economic crisis for both.

Even the Neo-Marxists today do not support classical Marxism. Nobody sensible does.

You are talking bollocks.

You'll find out.

[simplicity]

Other people's advantages might be your downfall, but there is nothing positive to say about women being slaves to mens' control. If you can't work that out you are stupid.

Why is every answer you seem to have a personal attack? Can't your ideas stand on their own?

It ought to be perfectly obvious that any women who wants to live as her grandmother did 100 years ago is free to do so and submit to the power of any man. Many women are still forced to do so - and not just in places like Afghanistan.
RIght here in the West women are still considered chattle in many contexts.
The levels of rape and abuse are still high.
The problem is not women. The problem remains men like you and your antiquated attitudes.
Your Victorian attitudes found more orphaned and neglected children, more prostitution, child abuse.
The emancipation of women has show a decline in these things, even though it has opened up the eyes of the world to such horror- idiots like you still think of the past like some sort of golden age.
You are sadly mistaken.

"It ought to be perfectly obvious..."

You might as well begin every sentence this way. Don't you understand that you are chatting with people who just might think a bit differently than you? Do you believe that everybody should think EXACTLY like you? What kind of nightmare world would that be!

Apparently you have bought into the notion that all women were essentially slaves throughout history. Here you are very wrong. Life was difficult for EVERYBODY. Women did what they did for many reasons besides this idea that The Patriarchy has been the guiding force throughout history. Open your mind a little bit and take a peak outside your narrative once in a while. You'll be surprised at what you might learn.

[Sculptor]

Read your history, I guess. Marx himself was bitterly disappointed when his revolution did not break out in Industrial England. When it appeared, it was in backward, feudalist Russia, and later, in largely-agrarian China, and was both bloody and tyrannical, not by the dynamics he had hoped, and not leading to a worker's utopia at all but to the gulag, the re-education camp, and later, to economic crisis for both.

Even the Neo-Marxists today do not support classical Marxism. Nobody sensible does.

You are talking bollocks.

You'll find out.

more and more bollocks

[Sculptor]

Other people's advantages might be your downfall, but there is nothing positive to say about women being slaves to mens' control. If you can't work that out you are stupid.

Why is every answer you seem to have a personal attack? Can't your ideas stand on their own?

It ought to be perfectly obvious that any women who wants to live as her grandmother did 100 years ago is free to do so and submit to the power of any man. Many women are still forced to do so - and not just in places like Afghanistan.
RIght here in the West women are still considered chattle in many contexts.
The levels of rape and abuse are still high.
The problem is not women. The problem remains men like you and your antiquated attitudes.
Your Victorian attitudes found more orphaned and neglected children, more prostitution, child abuse.
The emancipation of women has show a decline in these things, even though it has opened up the eyes of the world to such horror- idiots like you still think of the past like some sort of golden age.
You are sadly mistaken.

"It ought to be perfectly obvious..."

You might as well begin every sentence this way. Don't you understand that you are chatting with people who just might think a bit differently than you? Do you believe that everybody should think EXACTLY like you? What kind of nightmare world would that be!

Use you brain.
read a book

[simplicity]

Use you brain.
read a book

Of course, a book that agrees with your point of view.

It must be amazing to feel as if you have everything figured out. That must make you 21 years old.

[Sculptor]

Use you brain.
read a book

Of course, a book that agrees with your point of view.

It must be amazing to feel as if you have everything figured out. That must make you 21 years old.

How about any history book, so you can unpack your golden age, of happy families with 2.3 children where daddy goes to work and mummy stays home baking apple pie.
A world, in truth. were most women were on valium and daddy was screwing a whore because he was bored to fucking death with his desperate wife chained to the ktchen sink.

[Immanuel Can]

You are talking bollocks.

You'll find out.

more and more bollocks

Well, you're going to see.

[simplicity]

Use you brain.
read a book

Of course, a book that agrees with your point of view.

It must be amazing to feel as if you have everything figured out. That must make you 21 years old.

How about any history book, so you can unpack your golden age, of happy families with 2.3 children where daddy goes to work and mummy stays home baking apple pie.
A world, in truth. were most women were on valium and daddy was screwing a whore because he was bored to fucking death with his desperate wife chained to the ktchen sink.

You seem to see everything as black and white, all or none.

The difference between then and now is that society was [to a great extent] set up to support the family, because the better families do, the better your society does. Even in a more balanced situation, life was/nor will it ever be easy for anybody.

Do you really believe that most women were on Valium with their husbands whoring around? Although there has always been [and will always be] that percentage who do whatever, chat with somebody who grew up during the 50's and 60's and ask them what it was like. Most people were still married, most kids played outside without any fear, people's health was much better, schools were much better, food was much better, so on and so forth.

This is not to say that there was not serious shit going on as we are a serious shit kind of species and it will always be going on.

[Sculptor]

You'll find out.

more and more bollocks

Well, you're going to see.

Keep your bollocks in your pants, no one wants to see them

[Sculptor]

Of course, a book that agrees with your point of view.

It must be amazing to feel as if you have everything figured out. That must make you 21 years old.

How about any history book, so you can unpack your golden age, of happy families with 2.3 children where daddy goes to work and mummy stays home baking apple pie.
A world, in truth. were most women were on valium and daddy was screwing a whore because he was bored to fucking death with his desperate wife chained to the ktchen sink.

You seem to see everything as black and white, all or none.

The difference between then and now is that society was [to a great extent] set up to support the family, because the better families do, the better your society does. Even in a more balanced situation, life was/nor will it ever be easy for anybody.

Do you really believe that most women were on Valium with their husbands whoring around? Although there has always been [and will always be] that percentage who do whatever, chat with somebody who grew up during the 50's and 60's and ask them what it was like. Most people were still married, most kids played outside without any fear, people's health was much better, schools were much better, food was much better, so on and so forth.

This is not to say that there was not serious shit going on as we are a serious shit kind of species and it will always be going on.

You are a fantasist