justdrew:
It is dead wrong, sexist garbage. It pushes the utterly false claim that the problems were caused by people taking out mortgages they couldn't afford and generally inuring too much debt. That's not the case. Anyone pushing that view is a disingenuous liar. As if mortgages lenders were just forced to give liar loans out to anyone who asked for money. No the cause of this was MEN making fraudulent loans they knew they could sell to other stupid liar MEN to be made into CDOs.
Speaking of dead wrong sexist garbage...
the majority of workers in loan-sharking companies, building societies, banks and so forth, are women.
Canadian_watcher:
The reason that someone might email our little Stephen Morgan with their concern that stimulus spending is usually the domain of 'big burly men' is because those concerns are founded.
Not to me, to Prez Coconut's econo-council. They wouldn't bother complaining to me, there's nothing I can do about it.
Typically recessionary, job-stimulating spending is directed to infrastructure rebuilding, which, let's face it, is the domain of men. Not even necessarily 'big burly' men.. I might add, since most of the "stop-slow' sign carriers I've observed are of the tiny male persuasion.[/]
Those are the jobs which have been hardest hit by the economic downturn, therefore the logical choice for stimulus spending. Stimulusing is to stimulus those parts of the economy currently lacking stimulus-y-ness.
[i]If women are able to hold on to their jobs during recessions it is precisely because women - by and large - occupy the absolutely necessary home-minding type jobs that do not EVER disappear: daycare workers, human resource workers, teachers, social-workers, nurses, secretaries, etc etc. These are job ghettos, which for the entire duration of humanity have been undervalued.
Being jobs that never disappear is not the same as being jobs of innate and eternal value. Human resources jobs, for example, are held almost exclusively by vicious parasites. Like politicians, corporate directors and pen-pushers generally they constantly reproduce themselves but do little of any use.
Think of it as like cancer, is doesn't naturally disappear, it just keeps surviving and expanding with no end until it kills the host it feeds on. So it is with the white-collar jobs dominated by women, they expand as traditional productive jobs disappear, as cancer expands into the space vacated by the legitimate cells it has killed.
So nurses, yeah. Human resources and social workers, no. Day care workers, borderline case.
I'm in a rather bad mood because I'm listening to some scumbags on the radio, Stephen Fry one of them is called, a programme about language, propaganda against regional accents, and as someone with a rather strong accent in an area where the local news sometimes has subtitles because of the thick drawls of the rural folk, I object to this cult of enunciation.
So.. from a purely economic perspective, you don't get rid of the people who you NEED during a recession (the home caretakers) OR the people whose cost to you is minimal vs. the value they bring to you (those whose work is deemed 'naturally fitting to their biology and therefore needn't be highly remunerated)
During a recession you don't put money into those parts of the economy going on perfectly well anyway, you put money into those parts which are struggling. You're obviously not from the dismal science. Do a bit of Keynesianism, dear.
[i]Stephen Morgan, eat your misogynistic heart out. I'll beat you at this, every time. Me's a grad of the women's studies. (not to mention I've lived it, sucka)[/u][/quote]
A grad of women's studies? Well, that's a classic. Women's Studies, Media Studies, PPE, these are the worthless degrees taken only by people who are at university to party or to become white-collar vampires in later life. PPE opens you to a career as a PPS or a think-tank man or, god forfend, an M of P. Media Studies types don't get a worthwhile qualification at all and women's studies grads learn how to defend propaganda, untruths and hate-mongering, which is at least more useful than the things learned by a Media Studies sort.
Girl's Studies, of course, will make you intransigent, but I am very stubborn and my graduation with honours from the aforementioned school of getting your teeth kicked in has taught me a more logical method of thought than your own is likely to be.
But hey, you think you've "lived it" because of your long history of oppression as someone who was funded for several years by the state to study your own supposed oppression, I think I've "lived it" because I've spent several years as a member of the long-term unemployed getting kicked in the teeth by the DWP. You've obviously done better out of society, but I've ended up with a more cultivated mind.
compared2what? wrote:To which I'd like to say, and not for the first time, that women stay in low to middle-management office jobs for longer than men do less because they're taking over the world and more because the employers who are running it are aware that you can pay them less, that they're less likely to ask for promotions or raises than men, that they're less likely to quit if they don't get them, and that they're also less likely to take a job that entails either uprooting or moving away from their spouses and children, if any.
So can we please retire that scenario as one of the proofs that women as excessively predatory and ambitious?
Perhaps not predatory and ambitious, but the favourite pets of the rulers. A lap-dog might not be ruler of the house, but he's doing a lot better than the guard dog who, strong and vicious as he may be, gets kicked out into the cold and dark night to protect the garden. The position is based on the lapdog being less likely to bite the children, but the lapdog still gets the comfy bed and the nice food, even though the guard dog has a more dignified role.
This is an animal farm style analogue of the sex-situation. Women are less trouble, always have been, less likely to form unions, to organise, to get belligerent over pay and conditions.
See EP Thompson, even in the eighteenth century women were hired in the drak satanic mills for everything other than heavy labour and piecework. Piecework, of course, only happened when things were going well, much like the modern construction industry.
Women are the house niggers, the lap dogs, the tools.
I have always been a socialist, partly due to my life-long experience of being treated in a manner I deem to be unbeffitng for an Englishman. My raison d'etre, or as the French would say, my reason for being, is to take bloody vengeance upon the ruling class of my country and the world, preferably through a policy of redistributive taxation and workplace democracy. But I can't do that alone and there is no longer a mass movement aimed at these goals, nor has their been since the guardian-ite liberals left their coalition with the socialist left in favour of feminist identity politics, with the occasional nod to black people, muslims, greens and so on, rather than the bread and butter issues of the standards of living of the poor.
My own life, which I like to use as an exemplum for the plight of society at large has seen me constantly under the authority of such female jobsworths, first in school where I was eventually driven out by my constant buttings of head with the female teachers (one thing which make it rather difficult to find work is the fact that I am, officially speaking, illiterate due to my lack of an english qualification, although my inherently scruffy appearance and surly nature may well not help (imagine a man with a bristly red beard, arse-length blonde hair, and a natural inclination to answer questions with words of one syllable or less, then imagine an accent both guttural and coarse incorporating words you haven't heard before of a vaguely insulting and possibly sinister tone (slang words seem to be rarely used by women, examples of those I may say would be, say, bewer, which is not one I've heard from outside the local area, along with the more common terms such as owt/nowt for anything/nothing, summat for something, sen for self, and things along the lines of chinger, chavvy, chore and so forth, from what I gather it's a bad idea to refer to an interviewer as either "chavvy" or "mush") and further imagine that you are interviewing this personage, the you will see, although of course I could simper and scrape for some band of prattling simpletons, that would be acting, which is undignified and hence unworthy)), and more recently through the constant ministrations of the Jobcentre. The staff are almost entirely female and one of them recently reported me to the benefit fraud office for working while signing on, as if I'd still be signing on if I had some other source of income. Of course the jackal who forced his way into my home to investigate me for this non-existent offence wasn't female, they wouldn't be getting their hands dirty (besides, the most compelling, atavistically satisfying course of action would be to beat the buggers to death when then come to do their little investigation, so I suppose a small middle aged man with glasses is a more logical choice than a woman). Indeed I once waited for half an hour to sign on, well past my alloted time while the bitches stood around talking, I kid you not, about what hat they were going to wear to Ascot. Clearly the difference between them and me is that they are much more efficient scroungers.
Of course they don't constitute the ruling class of society, they are merely evil, verminous, scum. The hangman, the occupation soldier shooting an orphan, the policeman beating a peaceful protestor, the electricity worker cutting off a pensioner in the middle of winter, the jobcentre worker making false accusations against claimants, the woman making a false rape allegation, the HR staff member making others redundant while keep their own, more literally redundant, job, obviously all bailiffs everywhere, the concentration camp guard, the women's studies grad, these I should hope we can all agree are scum, although their power is not their own but that of their masters. So it goes. Also amongst these, I would number women using unjust laws to deprive children of their fathers, women claiming alimony other than by the destitute against the extremely wealthy (a rare situation), teachers indoctrinating students with feminist or capitalist lies, women receiving affirmative action, or shelter from a shelter publicly funded for victims of violence when they are not themselves victims of violence, givernment buraeucrats who keep their jobs while productive jobs disappear, and indeed the entire feminist movement and anyone who would put its ephemeral aims on a par with the noble causes of socialism and worker control.
So yes, I agree, women have all the cushy, safe, well paid jobs not because of their domineering activities in society, but because of the domineering activities of the real ruling class, who use women and especially the women's movement as their catspaws, their tools, their way of distracting attention from the more important revolutionary upheavals, their way of disrupting working class unity and, most importantly, their way of keeping men of the belligerant trade unionist type out of positions where they could cause real trouble.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
by justdrew » Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:59 am 
OMFG that's it! they. are. all. bald... AHHHHH!
