Why are feminists Socialists?

[Drewcifer]

Is is even true that all or even most feminists are socialists? My mom is a feminist but also a Republican. I would guess that most women elected as Republicans in the US would call themselves feminists but then point out the difference between them and left feminists. The fact is that most elected women in the the US are over the age of 40 and therefore feminists because it was that movement that allowed them to enter the mainstream of US society politicaly and economically. When they were growing up it was not possible for them to rise to the level of power, it was the feminist movement that made it achievable. Conservative women under the age of 40 are probably less likely to identify themselves as feminists because the battle has already been won and they don't identify themselves with the radicals. Before you declare that all feminists are liberals ask yourself, is Elizabeth Dole a radical leftist? Is Republican senator Olympia Snow from Maine a radical? They are both certainly feminists - the idea that they could have reached the positions they did would have been an extremist one in their youth. I think feminists are seen as liberals because the important battles they fought were won a generation ago so now it mostly the fringe that accepts that mantle; the moderates, who are still feminists in the historical context, just call themselves people.

 

[joacqin]

As we have seen from many many of the posters here there is still a strong need for a feminism movement. It is both entertaining and scary to see these right-wingers go ballistic on the very thought of equality between the genders. It is natural for a woman to stay at home making dinner and spitting out babies gotdammit!
Rmsharpe said they had nothing left to fight for, he would have said the same 30 years ago or 100 years ago. The good thing for people like him though is that we can legislate equality as much as we like and it still wont emancipate women to any greater degree. Our entire society is built by men, for men, sure a woman can make it nowadays but she would be forced to do it on male terms. A shining example is Condi Rice, how many 50+ male politicians ahve you heard who are single and have no children? For Condi it was either family or the career, that is how it is for women. A man can have both, not so for a vast majority of women.

 

[Renata]

I've made observations and asked for your thoughts. There is no need to speechify, arguments would be nicer.
QUOTE]

The topic of your post is the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet"; it assumes that all feminists are socialists upfront and thus cuts off any meaningful debate at the outset. I'm perfectly happy to debate issues; but in this case I'd have to debate the (lack of) logical structure in your argument, and I don't feel like doing that today.

Renata

 

[Stapel]

I've made observations and asked for your thoughts. There is no need to speechify, arguments would be nicer.

The topic of your post is the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet"; it assumes that all feminists are socialists upfront and thus cuts off any meaningful debate at the outset. I'm perfectly happy to debate issues; but in this case I'd have to debate the (lack of) logical structure in your argument, and I don't feel like doing that today.

Renata

Triggered by your reaction, I decided to read Adebisi's posts.
I think you overreact a bit, Renata.

A discussion on the differences of representation (and succes) of men and women in various areas of the economy is tricky anyway. Can it be done without mentioning biological differences? I doubt it. Can it be done without pointing out the huge differences in choices of profession? I doubt it.

Feminism is about fighting for equal rights. Hard-core feminism is about fighting for equal representation in economy. The latter (appearently) can only be acheived by typical left-wing (socialist) regulation like affirmative action. I oppose that.

If there are diferences in representation, we should see if men and women have equal chances. If chances are equal, yet differences keep existing, why bother?

I have long been puzzled by the huge differences between men and women. My mother did combine her motherhood with a pretty decent career path. Only at age 20 (or so), I realised my mother was an exception.
Before that, I was extremely puzzeled by tiny, silly things. At age 16, I did an investigation in my class at school:
Do you know how to set the timer for your videorecorder?
Does your mother know?
Does your father know?

Outcome: All boys and girls in my classroom did know. All fathers did too, yet none of the mothers did.
I did this during a math class, while our (female) math teacher was collecting a book. When she returned, she heared us discussing, and immediately informed me she did know how to set the timer of her videorecorder.

How is this outcome possible?

Today, at age 31, I am puzzled by the lack of career ambition I notice with so many well-educated women of my age. Most of them seem to favour a 4-day working week. Most of my male friends would not.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but can't help noticing it.

 

[joacqin]

Why do you think this is so Stapel? Do you think women are biologically unable to learn to set a VCR? Do you think women are biologically programmed to lack the ambition for anything more than a four day week?

We program our children since the day they are born and girls are programmed to be meek, subservient and to understand that no ambition is more worthy for them than to raise a family and find a man while men are programmed to be competitive, aggressive and ambitious. We do this even when we try not to do it and thus we keep on cementing the roles we supposedly are trying to get rid off. A parent can try to not do this but then the programming will be done through movies, tv, music, games, books, school, daycare basically everything in our society. Of course there are exceptions but they are rarer than one might think.

An interesting thought which I have pondered lately is who really gets the sore end of the stick? Women may lack power and possibilities but is it really preferably to be molded into the role of yet another racer in the rat race driven by competition to succeed in a cutthroat world? Be that as it may, the point is that neither men nor women have much of a choice, they take the path society have decided for the, not the one they have decided for themselves.

 

[Stapel]

Why do you think this is so Stapel? Do you think women are biologically unable to learn to set a VCR? Do you think women are biologically programmed to lack the ambition for anything more than a four day week?

As I said: All the girls in my class did know..... Just the mothers not.

I think there are two (main?) reasons.
1. The one you mentioned: continuously cultural programming of children.
-Fathers forcing their uninterested sons to read a roadmap, while taking taking it from their interested daughters, in order to save it from her demolishing abilities.
-Grandfathers smiling at their grandsons when they break an alarm clock: "Look, he is interested in technique." When a little girl does so, she is just a typical a-technical girl, as she has broken it!
-The simple message most of us unintentionally get from our own environment: Most of us simply saw it as kids: Mammy runs the house, while daddy is away making money. And so did we see ti ahppen at our friend's and neighbour's

2. Biological differences. Usually mentioning this causes political correct reactions that simply leave no room for this .
There are two possibilities:
a. Differences in brain capacity. There are numerous theories about men generally being better in math and women generally being better in noticing someone doesn't feel well emotionally. These theories are indeed hard to prove.
b. Differences in hormones. Here we go! Proven 100%. Male hormones stimulate ambition. Females hormones stimulate care.

Small note: Both men & women have both male and female hormones. It's the amounts / percentages that generally differ a lot.

 

[storealex]

No, they are not. If they were, there wouldn't be such a massive dissent about it and there wouldn't be any strikes.

Give it up, to call them slaves is an extreme exageration and you know it. Now you're saying "They were striking, so they must be slaves" Come on, you can see how this sounds right?

Ehm, there are lots of regulations and thus lots of "force" according to libertarian logics.

There are no regulations that forces them to become nurses, and there are no regulations that forces them to keep their job.

Why do you even bother to bring up cheap points like this

Now excuse me, but that was not a cheap point at all. You didn't say compared to other groups in Sweden, you said compared to USA. In Denmark, nurses are not paid low compared to other groups. You should express your self clearer, instead of attacking me.

Because every now and then people will ask themselves why democracy is a good system, and then they will look at the outcome, not the procedure.

Sweden has chosen it's path democratically, therefore it's not a failed democracy. And come on, they aren't doing that bad. Even if they dismantle their system, even if they don't use all their potential, even if they become much poorer, they'll still be relatively well off.

Is the US a Social Democracy then? I would say no.

I would prefer if you would read what I write, not what you want me to write. I said at 30% it
could still be a Social Democracy, I didn't say it necessarily would. US is spending lot's of it's tax money on military for an example. It all depends was a nations priorities are.

Denmark is a lot more liberal than Sweden. It is also natural for the welfare states to move away from socialism, by cutting taxes and privatizing services, since the welfare economy will not work in the long run.

Depends how large it is. It's too large in Sweden, a little too large in Denmark, but it's not like a welfarestate equals a failing economy.

 

[Adebisi]

Give it up, to call them slaves is an extreme exageration and you know it. Now you're saying "They were striking, so they must be slaves" Come on, you can see how this sounds right?

Now excuse me, but that was not a cheap point at all. You didn't say compared to other groups in Sweden, you said compared to USA. In Denmark, nurses are not paid low compared to other groups. You should express your self clearer, instead of attacking me.

This merely proves that you have not understood my point. Now try to follow: In order for there to be cheap, public healthcare, the welfare state needs to regulate it, by keeping the wages low and demand low (trough waiting times). This is a collectivist decision, which the individual cannot do much about. That is my point in this thread, collectivism works against women, like pure patriarchalism.

If you would have understood that, you wouldn't have asked that question, if the the state sets the wages lower than the market value then of course they will be lower than wages in general in that country.

It is common to refer to low, unfair wages as "slave wages". Of course they are not literally slaves because of that. I didn't really expect anyone to believe so though.

There are no regulations that forces them to become nurses, and there are no regulations that forces them to keep their job.

Remember that it was the libertarian definition you brought up - no libertarian supports politicians setting wages, hugh public sectors, or welfare states.

Sweden has chosen it's path democratically, therefore it's not a failed democracy. And come on, they aren't doing that bad. Even if they dismantle their system, even if they don't use all their potential, even if they become much poorer, they'll still be relatively well off.

But it has failed to produce a fully democratic outcome, even though the procedure would be democractic. There is no mention of a two-party system in the American constitution either, and noone is forced not to vote for third party candidates, yet the outcome is a two-party system. I oppose both the Swedish one-party system and the American two-party system regardless of how democratic elections have been.

You are right about Sweden, if they dismantle their system they would be relativly well off. However, Sweden has the most extreme pay-as-you-go pension system in Europe which is entirley dependent on tax money. That money may not exist if the projections of the Swedish ministry of finance are correct.

I said at 30% it could still be a Social Democracy

I personally do not believe so, but perhaps you dont define "welfare state" the same way I do. I believe it would be a liberal democracy with a social security net - sort of what the American democrats want, minus all the protectionism and other collectivist nonsense. I do not believe that a state with low progression, a slim public sector, private health insurance and pension systems is a welfare state.

 

[allhailIndia]

I had a Communist feminist for a sociology prof for 2 sems and she turned me into a male chauvinistic pig

j/k I was always a male chauvinistic pig, but my faith was re-affirmed by my experience of being taught feminist/socialist/marxist/casteist/ anything else remotely related to an ism theories of sociology.

Of course I am once again kidding

To get back to the point, I think it is also because socialism itself tends towards being sympathetic to feminism. Both China and Russia saw great leaps forward for the women in terms of opportunity and education for women,( but mega leaps backward in everything else for everybody) under Communist rule.

Oh and rmsharpe...your last words described my socio teacher very accurately.

 

[Laughing Gull]

I once told this annoying stereotypical english major socialist granola eating ******** that I actually go out of my way to use women for sex. oh boy that was a hoot. the look on her face was priceless.

 

[Verbose]

You are right about Sweden, if they dismantle their system they would be relativly well off. However, Sweden has the most extreme pay-as-you-go pension system in Europe which is entirley dependent on tax money. That money may not exist if the projections of the Swedish ministry of finance are correct.

Your info on this is badly out of date. Sweden now has a fully funded retirement system, where you take out what you put in. The Germans are taking a serious look at it as possible way of dealing with their similar problem. (We will all be working into our 70's, but what the hell.)

That aside, everybody out there might take to mind, that Sweden/Scandinavia is a small and insignificant part of the world. What is known about it is usually less fact and more projections of what people with a political/economic agenda would LIKE to be true.

The socialists have their "truth". The non-socialists the reverse. Instead of being a place that actually exists and works in a less than perfect way, it becomes a battle ground for unrestrained wishful thinking. ("Scandinavia is Paradise on earth!" vs. "No, it's a fiscally and morally bankrupt and will sink into the sea!")

Todays Sweden is much more like Britain and the US than Denmark, and the objective of all economic reform in the last decade has been to make it more so.