subject:"\[PEN\-L\] bye\-bye Mao"


Greetings Economists,
Let's examine the differences.
On Sep 1, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:


Ervand Abrahamian says that Khomeini is to the Islamic Revolution
what Lenin was to the Bolshevik, Mao to the Chinese, and Castro to the
Cuban revolutions


Doyle;
The Communists were materialists, and Khomeini was not.  One of the
ways Lenin would have rejected this subject matter is to say Fideism.
Or more recently I suppose Psychologizing.

Over all Islam and Judaism are cousins of the book, and of a theory of
mass mind that comes out of producing knowledge through text.  Instead
of rejecting Psychologizing as more or less speculating with no
material basis for realistic action, Religions based upon Text based
Knowledge production utilized 'rules of thumb' about knowledge
production to advance community social organization to larger scales
than were possible on the more restricted Pagan community structures
dependent upon face to face knowledge production of say Thor, or
Jupiter, or Athena and so on.  So Khomeini and other religious leaders
don't accept the limitations that say Lenin would put down as a
materialist about idle metaphysical speculation of knowledge
production.

That said Yoshie makes the point that Khomeini led a profound social
revolution in Iran on the level of Lenin in Russia.  Now we know
Lenin's revolution eventually evolved into the current Russia from the
Soviets.  And the Chinese as well have evolved from the Soviet model.
So there is lacking in the 'theory of the mass mind' in Communist
methods of some sort of materialist theory of knowledge production, or
Khoneini's idle metaphysical Islamic speculation about god heaven and
so on that still can parallel to Socialist methods seize State power.
What is lacking is what produced a vast social 'cohesion' capable of
pulling down the Shah and now defying the U.S. military power in a
context of more developed worlds mass media and propaganda apparatus.
At least part of that is how the state allows a non materialist social
cohesion to function in the framework of the state roughly at least as
well as George Bush does in the U.S, but that Socialist are barred from
doing with the present tools.

For example, the segregation of men from women in Iran via religious
traditions is not Socialistic view of social equality.  Where Marx sees
the whole of the working class, Islam knowledge practice mostly sees
men and women apart in terms of how knowledge is shared.

It's the inability to realistically in an economic sense materially
express what knowledge production does that makes it difficult for
Marxist to create an irreversible Socialist or Communist culture.  What
I mean by irreversible, to not reverse back into Capitalism.  While I'm
not really interested in trying to get the 'spirit' into Marxist, I am
interested in seeing what we can do with knowledge production to
equalize knowledge for all workers.  The segregation of women in Islam
is not a Socialist goal.

What knowledge are we talking about?  Social cohesion knowledge.  Not
the knowledge of a member of the party gains by participating in party
activity, but the larger issue of how all people connect via brain
work.  George Bush is pursuing a roughly similar goal of complete U.S.
empiric control of the globe.  A planetary super state demands forms
not present in the current global division of power.

I agree that idle speculation about theoretical social cohesion via say
a religious dogma yields more or less rubbish.  What can we say about
the current state of humanity?  Most mass media is not interactive, but
we know enough about knowledge production to start building some sorts
of interactive mass media like video games.  Or more text based
business tools like word processors, spreadsheets and so on.  Most of
class relations are built upon what I think of as the bottle neck of
interactivity in humans of face to face knowledge sharing.  The first
level of face to face knowledge sharing is the family.  Beyond that the
much more nebulous group cohesion of racism and sexism or of party
membership broadly function mostly because of the mass media spreading
information about the knowledge of one or the other forms of social
cohesion through the universal coverage of one-to-many media.  And the
mass media is not interactive, or in common technical terms the mass
media is one-to-many knowledge production.  Thus leaving out of the
process how knowledge is shared in the whole group of people who get
it.  Thus making it impossible to get past the bottle neck to
realistically construction face to face like social cohesion on the
global scale.

In other words what is irreversible in Socialism?  What is it that
prevents reversion to Capitalism?  Social cohesion of Socialism depends
upon precisely the primitive of what face to face produces in the
family.  Socialism posits the large scale cohesion of the whole working
class, and the means to 'see' that is to understand what human cohesion

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Carrol Cox

Doyle Saylor wrote:

 ... producing knowledge through text.
 Text based Knowledge production

I know this metaphor of production is not Doyle's own invention, and
can be found in the fields of discourse theory  elsewher. But I still
think it's a lousy metaphor and is apt to obscure more than it
illumines.

And if you drop the metaphor, I suspect it would be more difficult to
maintain the distinction between knowledge grounded in a text and
knowledge grounded in face to face communication. There's an older
metaphor of the world as text (which was the basis for modern meaning of
read) on the one hand and on the other hand the intepretation of texts
(e.g. scripture) usually occurs, to begin with, in face-to-face
encounters (the schoolroom, the academy, the temple).

In any case interpretation of the text (scripture or world) will flow
from the conditions of practice in the society in which the
interpretation grows.

Carrol

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

For example, the segregation of men from women in Iran via religious
traditions is not Socialistic view of social equality.  Where Marx sees
the whole of the working class, Islam knowledge practice mostly sees
men and women apart in terms of how knowledge is shared.


It's not so much Islam per se as Iran itself that is a homosocial
society anyhow, like many other parts of Asia, including generally
irreligious Japan.  Iran, too, has gotten secularized, due to
increasing development, urbanization, proletarianization, and so on,
so, in the near future, it will probably either drop Islamism or
reform Islam to end de jure gender segregation where it still exists,
but the basic homosocial organization of society will probably outlive
that change.

Homosocial societies have their charm.


In other words what is irreversible in Socialism?  What is it that
prevents reversion to Capitalism?


Very difficult but important questions.  Historically, the vanguard
for restoration of capitalism in socialist society have been either
the bureaucratic power elite themselves or dissident intellectuals
(who compared their station in socialist life with that of their
counterpart in capitalist life and found the former wanting) or both.

Yiching Wu's Rethinking 'Capitalist Restoration' in China (Monthly
Review 57.6, November 2005,
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1105wu.htm) may be of interest to you:

blockquoteInvoking the historical experience of the Chinese
Revolution, William Hinton conveyed the Maoist thesis of bourgeois
restoration in the vivid metaphor of revolutionary prairie fire:

   A single spark can start a prairie fire. And so it...ignited a
prairie fire that carried all before it, bringing more change to China
in a few decades than two millennia had previously brought forth. But
now the fire has burned itself out, and, as the flames die down, it
becomes apparent that change has not been deep. Fire burned the
foliage off, but the roots of the old civilization survived and are
now sending up vigorous sprouts that push aside and overwhelm, in one
sphere after another, all revolutionary innovations.33

Hinton's colorful metaphor, however, is premised on a problematic
conception of historical determination, namely, the determination of
the present by the residual forces of the past. Revolutions certainly
do not eliminate the past, they write on top of it. Yet the revolution
also produces its own contradictions. Socialism is not just built on
top of the surviving deposits of capitalism, feudalism, or whatever.
The remnants of the past enter into the new society and are
necessarily conditioned by its newly created antagonisms and
contradictions. The dead weight of past history cannot be easily
restored backwards. Or it will perhaps take much longer—certainly
longer than the two or so decades taken by the very speedy
restoration in China. The extraordinary development of capitalism in
China today is fueled by a more powerful logic of social
recomposition—it has been aided by far more efficient and expeditious
means, driven by class forces that operate more from above than from
below, more within than without. The ideological significance of
bourgeois restoration—and the Maoist theory of class struggle that
formed its nucleus—lay in their function of _diversion_ and
_mystification_. By concentrating on remnants from past traditions,
spontaneous petty tendencies from below, and insidious capitalist
roaders and their line from within, the Maoist discourse of capitalist
restoration distorted and obscured the central contradiction of
post-revolutionary Chinese society./blockquote

That -- 'By concentrating on remnants from past traditions,
spontaneous petty tendencies from below, and insidious capitalist
roaders and their line from within, the Maoist discourse of capitalist
restoration distorted and obscured the central contradiction of
post-revolutionary Chinese society -- is an important insight.  That
is why I've been saying that history does not repeat itself, not even
as a farce, and that believing, without evidence, that the same
constellation of social forces of the past still obtained in the
present makes us unable to see what's what.
--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,

On Sep 2, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:


And if you drop the metaphor,


Doyle;
I am being literal about the word, 'production'.  Text 'produces' a
form of information that is one to many, not interactive.  A software
application like Microsoft word produces an interactive content.
Interpretation is an interactive process of producing knowledge in that
a person does the interpretation but if they write text to interpret
the text is one to many.  And the bottle neck then comes up about face
to face or interactive information.
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Carrol Cox

Doyle Saylor wrote:
 
 Greetings Economists,
 
 On Sep 2, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
 
  And if you drop the metaphor,
 
 Doyle;
 I am being literal about the word, 'production'.  Text 'produces' a
 form of information that is one to many, not interactive.

I'm not convinced that this usage can be literal. I append at the end
all the possibly relevant OED definitions, with selected illustrations.
My basis for disagreement is that I do not think knowledge itself can be
considered a product in any useful sense. And it is at best misleading
(clashing with usual expectations) to treat knowledge as a product.

Carrol

1. a. trans. To bring forward, bring forth or out; to bring into view,
to present to view or notice; to offer for inspection or consideration,
exhibit. Often used of bringing forward witnesses, as well as evidence,
or vouchers, in a court of law. 

1499 [DELETE] 1776 Trial of Nundocomar 16/1 The books must be produced,
as we cannot receive parole evidence of their contents. 1828 SCOTT F.M.
Perth viii, So saying, he produced, from the hawking pouch already
mentioned, the stiffened hand. 1877 Act 40  41 Vict. c. 60 §5 Any
person..may, on producing..a copy of his authorisation..enter by day
such canal boat. 

b. To introduce; now spec., to bring (a performer or performance) before
the public; to administer and supervise the production of (a film or
broadcast programme). refl., to come forward, come 'out'. Also absol. 

1585 [DELETE] 1897 G. B. SHAW in Sat. Rev. 13 Feb. 170/1 Like all plays
under Mr. Barrett's management, 'The Daughter of Babylon' is excellently
produced. [DELETE] 1966 Listener 6 Oct. 515/2, I think it was
over-ambitious of Mr Wheeler to produce and write the script, yet one
cannot belittle his success in presenting very clearly the broad scope
of his subject. 1971 N. K. PARROTT in J. R. Brown Drama  Theatre iv. 87
Othello got produced, mainly because somebody wanted to do it and
convinced enough other people to join him in presenting it. 

2. a. Geom. [DELETE]

3. To bring forth, bring into being or existence.a. generally. To
bring (a thing) into existence from its raw materials or elements, or as
the result of a process; to give rise to, bring about, effect, cause,
make (an action, condition, etc.). 

1513 [DELETE]1879 LUBBOCK Sci. Lect. iii. 87 Certain..insects produce a
noise by rubbing one of their abdominal rings against another. 1891 Law
Rep., Weekly Notes 136/2 The coal was cut in large blocks..the small
coal was produced by the friction of the blocks. 

b. Of an animal or plant: To generate, bring forth, give birth to, bear,
yield (offspring, seed, fruit, etc.). Also absol. 

1526 [DELETE] 1976 'A. GARVE' Home to Roost ii. 26 She had naturally
expected to start a family... There was no apparent physical reason why
we shouldn't produce. 

c. Of a country, region, river, mine, process, [DELETE] 

d. To compose or bring out by mental or physical labour (a work of
literature or art); to work up from raw material, fabricate, make,
manufacture (material objects); in Pol. Econ. often blending with sense
c. 

1638 [DELETE]1719 ADDISON To Sir G. Kneller 78 This wonder of the
sculptor's hand Produced, his art was at a stand. [DELETE] 1901 Westm.
Gaz. 6 Sept. 9/1 The true principle is to produce for one's self what
one can best produce, and with the product buy elsewhere that which
others can best produce. 

e. absol. To produce the goods, money, results. slang. 
1970 G. F. NEWMAN Sir, You Bastard viii. 226 Ring me. And you'd better
produce. 1977 New Yorker 24 Oct. 64/3 One queen's 'husband' asked her to
'produce' for four of his friends and stabbed her when she declined.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Leigh Meyers


Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:


Homosocial societies have their charm.

.
I'm not so sure that 'Homosocial' is the correct term. Gender-divided is
what I visualize.

If islam is kissing cousin to judaism, one might learn from the friday
evening prayer that my grandparents used to say before candle-lighting.

My grandfather, in his recitation, would say: Thank god for not making
me a woman.
My grandmother's recitation; Thank god for not making me a man.

emmis
http://www.asinine.com/essays/yiddish.html

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:


knowledge itself can be
considered a product in any useful sense.


Doyle;
Ahhh, I see where we disagree.  Let me consider your OED definitions.

CC quotes OED;
1828 SCOTT F.M.
Perth viii, So saying, he produced, from the hawking pouch already
mentioned, the stiffened hand. 1877 Act 40  41 Vict. c. 60 §5 Any
person..may, on producing..a copy of his authorisation

Doyle;
That seems to say what I am saying, the authorisation is produced.  The 
copy is a reproduction of knowledge of the authority in the 
circumstance.  Where probably by hand it was written.

or

CC quotes OED,
1966 Listener 6 Oct. 515/2, I think it was
over-ambitious of Mr Wheeler to produce and write the script, yet one
cannot belittle his success in presenting very clearly the broad scope
of his subject.

Doyle;
Again the writer 'produces' a script or text based information of his 
knowledge as the writer reproduces a novel on paper of the writers 
thoughts.


I think of knowledge as not just something in the head of human 
awareness of being as Sartre would have it, but what we record in our 
information technologies whether quite old as writing is or more up to 
date as movie production is.  Do you disagree?  Perhaps there is an 
error in my view?

Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

That
is why I've been saying that history does not repeat itself, not even
as a farce, and that believing, without evidence, that the same
constellation of social forces of the past still obtained in the
present makes us unable to see what's what.

Doyle;
First I think you have opened up the discussion of socialism to much more depths than I encounter anywhere else. I am very appreciative of that.

I think Capitalism is a kind of relations to the means of production. And Communist were trying to get rid of the 'relationship'. The relationship continued after the 1949 revolution and class relations were reproduced on a large scale eventually. The means of locking an equality in the working class was not achieved. Now this might be said to be not a matter of history determining the present, that is not repeating itself. But it can be said in my view to be Capitalism reproducing itself across society in the face of efforts by Communist to get rid of it. In that context I move to your very insightful comment;

Yoshie writes;
Iran, too, has gotten secularized, due to
increasing development, urbanization, proletarianization, and so on,
so, in the near future, it will probably either drop Islamism or
reform Islam to end de jure gender segregation where it still exists,
but the basic homosocial organization of society will probably outlive
that change.

Homosocial societies have their charm.

Doyle;
I looked up Homosocial in good ole Wikipedia and reproduce the definition;

x-tad-biggerThe term /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerhomosocial/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger is used in /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggersociology/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger and denotes same-sex relationships that are not of /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggersexual/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger nature. For example, a /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerheterosexual/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger male who prefers to socialize with men may be considered a homosocial heterosexual.
Homosociality is a term frequently used in discussions of the all-male world of knightly life in /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggermedieval culture/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger./x-tad-bigger[citation needed]x-tad-bigger Homosocial relationships are not obliged to be sexual relationships, they are merely same-sex social interactions. The term homosociality is most often used with reference to male relationships./x-tad-bigger[x-tad-biggerRosabeth Moss Kanter/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger used the term homosocial reproduction (originally, homosexual reproduction) to describe the alleged tendencies of corporate executives to socalize with and promote other men, resulting in a /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerglass ceiling/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger for women in the same environment./x-tad-bigger

Doyle;
This seems to me to rouse up the fundamental issue before Socialist, i.e. human connection processes. That is knowledge production. For example, to say a homosocial milieu has it's charms, I take to mean there is an emotional attraction to the single sex community. And for me, then a Socialist is really considering emotional knowledge production.

Is that division a source of class relations? Or is that Patriarchy? Thus representing many still poorly resolved issues in extant Socialist societies themselves that Yoshie exposes. And it is in my view because the question of social connection knowledge is primitive and based upon face to face connection processes that a Socialist connection process has floundered. The work process is usually pushed aside because so much of the theory around it is either metaphysical like Martha Nussbaum's writings on Disgust and Shame, or black box Psychological speculation tainted by organizing therapy into a little petty businesses of face to face therapy that fundamentally obscures the large scale knowledge production problems Socialist want to resolve.

Homosocial milieu are based upon face to face interactivity. Capitalist on a global scale cannot do that because the working force must be able to access 'knowledge' without regard to face to face milieu. For Socialist now, they must have a credible emotion structure for the masses to adhere to that is not just the basic material offerings. It is really in my view what 'Queers' open up as the main arena of Socialist revolution.
thanks,
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Leigh Meyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

 Homosocial societies have their charm.
.
I'm not so sure that 'Homosocial' is the correct term. Gender-divided is
what I visualize.


I like the term homosocial because it calls attention to not just
division between genders but also bonding, socializing, etc. within
the same gender.

In a heterosocial society, there are a lot of pressures on men and
women to socialize across the gender line and have heterosexual
relations (if you don't, your sexual identity gets stigmatized as
abnormal).  Not so in a homosocial society.  A homosocial society can
be more comfortable for women as well as men.  It will be nice if Iran
will get developed into a homosocial but gender-egalitarian society.

--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Yoshie Furuhashi  wrote:

 It will be nice if Iran
will get developed into a homosocial but gender-egalitarian society.


as Jesus once said, fat chance!

with one sex controlling the state and the economy, who do you think
will dominate? being relegated to domestic labor has a tendency to
divide and rule.
--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 9/2/06, Yoshie Furuhashi  wrote:
  It will be nice if Iran
 will get developed into a homosocial but gender-egalitarian society.

as Jesus once said, fat chance!

with one sex controlling the state and the economy, who do you think
will dominate? being relegated to domestic labor has a tendency to
divide and rule.


The female proportion of Iran's labor force has gone up, from 20% in
1980 to 33% in 2004.  Give it a couple more decades, and it will be
close to Japan (41% in 2004) and the USA (46% in 2004).

Source: World Bank GenderStats
Iran:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/genderstats/genderRpt.asp?rpt=profilecty=IRN,Iran,%20Islamic%20Rep.hm=home
Japan:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/genderstats/genderRpt.asp?rpt=profilecty=JPN,Japanhm=home
The USA:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/genderstats/genderRpt.asp?rpt=profilecty=USA,United%20Stateshm=home
--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Doug Henwood


On Sep 2, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:


In a heterosocial society, there are a lot of pressures on men and
women to socialize across the gender line and have heterosexual
relations (if you don't, your sexual identity gets stigmatized as
abnormal).  Not so in a homosocial society.  A homosocial society can
be more comfortable for women as well as men.


Wow. First you throw over Marxism, now you give up on cross-gender
friendships? Separate means more equal? This is all just some
exercise in performance art, isn't it?

Doug

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:


First you throw over Marxism, now you give up on cross-gender
friendships? Separate means more equal? This is all just some
exercise in performance art, isn't it?


Doyle;
No Yoshie is not necessarily advocating segregation, Yoshie is pointing
to the 'charm' or emotional attachments of a kind of face to face
knowledge production in a Homosocial group.  What is missing from your
Marxism is a Socialist equality of emotional attachment that supersedes
what Yoshie is pointing out about Iran.  In effect Yoshie opens the
discussion to Taboo areas in the Socialist camp.
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Jim Devine wrote:


with one sex controlling the state and the economy, who do you think
will dominate? being relegated to domestic labor has a tendency to
divide and rule.


Doyle;
True but beside the point.  There is still gender inequality in
Socialist States.  What exactly is the way out?  What is the work
process of equality that resolves the issue?
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Doug Henwood


On Sep 2, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Doyle Saylor wrote:


What is missing from your
Marxism is a Socialist equality of emotional attachment


Actually you don't know much of anything about my Marxism, so please
refrain from characterizing it.

Doug

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:

 First you throw over Marxism, now you give up on cross-gender
 friendships? Separate means more equal? This is all just some
 exercise in performance art, isn't it?

Doyle;
No Yoshie is not necessarily advocating segregation, Yoshie is pointing
to the 'charm' or emotional attachments of a kind of face to face
knowledge production in a Homosocial group.  What is missing from your
Marxism is a Socialist equality of emotional attachment that supersedes
what Yoshie is pointing out about Iran.  In effect Yoshie opens the
discussion to Taboo areas in the Socialist camp.
Doyle


The more taboos you have, the more religious your thinking is.  What's
the slogan of the Enlightenment?  Dare to know!

Besides, the charms of homosocial bonding should be obvious.  There
are more leftists among women than men, but all leftist discussion
lists I've been on, except the ones that are specifically feminist,
are overwhelmingly homosocial, predominantly male environments.  I
take it that most leftist women value homosocial bonding far more than
I do ora take a dimmer view of heterosocial bonding than I do.  :-

Now we have only two socialist societies (Cuba and North Korea, if
North Korea counts as one, which may be disputed by many) and one
socialist government (Venezuela) left in the whole world.  While
Muslim, secular nationalist, social democratic, and other types of
countries have all had chances of electing female heads of state here
and there, but it is striking that no socialist state has done so.
Will a socialist state be led by a female head of state sooner than
Iran will be?
--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Louis Proyect


What is missing from your
Marxism is a Socialist equality of emotional attachment


Actually you don't know much of anything about my Marxism, so please
refrain from characterizing it.

Doug


Actually, speaking as somebody who spent a couple of hours with Doug, his
wife Liza and their new baby Ivan on Friday night, I can attest to his deep
emotional attachments not just to his immediate family but to the left in
general. Doug, who I've known since the late 80s, easily could have gone to
work on Wall Street and made a ton of money with his Yale degree and his
mastery of finance. Instead, he plugs away for no money at all bringing
left activists and scholars to the attention of the Pacifica audience in
NYC. You don't do those things unless you have the kind of love of humanity
that Che Guevara spoke about.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:


Actually you don't know much of anything about my Marxism, so please
refrain from characterizing it.


Doyle,
That's fine.  Let me say it another way, there is no connection between
you and I.  My Socialism is about my attachment to my comrades.  Your
'Marxism' which is implied in the statement above does not emotionally
connect to my Socialism.  I infer further you have no theory of what to
do.  Don't care to attach to me as a comrade and don't think this is a
compelling question to ask.
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

What is missing from your
Marxism is a Socialist equality of emotional attachment

Actually you don't know much of anything about my Marxism, so please
refrain from characterizing it.

Doug

Actually, speaking as somebody who spent a couple of hours with Doug, his
wife Liza and their new baby Ivan on Friday night, I can attest to his deep
emotional attachments not just to his immediate family but to the left in
general. Doug, who I've known since the late 80s, easily could have gone to
work on Wall Street and made a ton of money with his Yale degree and his
mastery of finance. Instead, he plugs away for no money at all bringing
left activists and scholars to the attention of the Pacifica audience in
NYC. You don't do those things unless you have the kind of love of humanity
that Che Guevara spoke about.


A fine instance of male bonding.  :-

--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:


Actually, speaking as somebody who spent a couple of hours with Doug,
his
wife Liza and their new baby Ivan on Friday night, I can attest to his
deep
emotional attachments not just to his immediate family but to the left
in
general. Doug, who I've known since the late 80s, easily could have
gone to
work on Wall Street and made a ton of money with his Yale degree and
his
mastery of finance. Instead, he plugs away for no money at all bringing
left activists and scholars to the attention of the Pacifica audience
in
NYC. You don't do those things unless you have the kind of love of
humanity
that Che Guevara spoke about.


Doyle;
That speaks well of Doug.  Which does not contradict what I said
either.  In fact what I think is missing in the U.S. left at least is
the sort of reconciliation you two had.  A means of binding the left
into a mass movement.  Of absorbing homosexuality into the mass
movement, and more important to me, disabled people (I reject the
language of PWD or People with Disabilities).
thanks,
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Louis Proyect


A fine instance of male bonding.  :-

--
Yoshie


No, it is socialists bonding. I value people for their ideas and for their
actions, not because of their private parts or because I am into locker
room camaderie.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:


A fine instance of male bonding.  :-


Doyle;
I would add I would gladly suck Louis' cock to give him a more intimate
sort of bonding experience.  But I suspect that grosses him out,
DISGUSTS HIM.
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


being in the labor force isn't the same thing as being in power. In
the US, feminists had to fight to break down the walls set up by the
old boys network and still haven't succeeded completely.

On 9/2/06, Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 9/2/06, Yoshie Furuhashi  wrote:
   It will be nice if Iran
  will get developed into a homosocial but gender-egalitarian society.

 as Jesus once said, fat chance!

 with one sex controlling the state and the economy, who do you think
 will dominate? being relegated to domestic labor has a tendency to
 divide and rule.

The female proportion of Iran's labor force has gone up, from 20% in
1980 to 33% in 2004.  Give it a couple more decades, and it will be
close to Japan (41% in 2004) and the USA (46% in 2004).

Source: World Bank GenderStats
Iran:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/genderstats/genderRpt.asp?rpt=profilecty=IRN,Iran,%20Islamic%20Rep.hm=home
Japan:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/genderstats/genderRpt.asp?rpt=profilecty=JPN,Japanhm=home
The USA:
http://devdata.worldbank.org/genderstats/genderRpt.asp?rpt=profilecty=USA,United%20Stateshm=home
--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/




--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

A fine instance of male bonding.  :-

--
Yoshie

No, it is socialists bonding. I value people for their ideas and for their
actions, not because of their private parts or because I am into locker
room camaderie.


That's how male bonding works in the real world -- men who think alike
bond to exclude women who don't think like them!  :-

--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

being in the labor force isn't the same thing as being in power. In
the US, feminists had to fight to break down the walls set up by the
old boys network and still haven't succeeded completely.


No, but women need their own sources of income aside from what men
bring in if they are to have more bargaining power within families and
communities, and getting into workplaces outside homes brings women
together with other women and men, which is a better political terrain
than household labor that is often solitary in a country above a
certain level of economic development.

--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Dan Scanlan


On Sep 2, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:


 now you give up on cross-gender
friendships? Separate means more equal? This is all just some
exercise in performance art, isn't it?


Or perhaps a party. In my neighborhood the transgender folks are
throwing a big shindig, a come-as-your-were party.

Dan

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


I wrote:

 with one sex controlling the state and the economy, who do you think
 will dominate? being relegated to domestic labor has a tendency to
 divide and rule.


Doyle:

True but beside the point.  There is still gender inequality in
Socialist States.  What exactly is the way out?  What is the work
process of equality that resolves the issue?


Yoshie wasn't talking about socialist states (or state socialism) or
the way out. She was hoping that somehow -- without struggle?? -- the
Iranian system of gender segregation (homosocial society = gender
apartheid?) would develop toward being a gender-egalitarian society.

but while we're on the subject, I think the only way that women's
equality can be gained is via feminist struggle of the sort we've seen
(with partial success) in the US. That's why independent organizations
of, by, and for women are so important, so needed. Equality is not
handed down by those in power, who benefit from inequality.
--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Jim Devine wrote:


but while we're on the subject, I think the only way that women's
equality can be gained is via feminist struggle of the sort we've seen
(with partial success) in the US. That's why independent organizations
of, by, and for women are so important, so needed. Equality is not
handed down by those in power, who benefit from inequality.


Doyle;
Yoshie's already converted you to Homosocial organizing?  Wow this is
spreading like wild fire.
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Mark Lause wrote:


Doyle,

Everybody's be much more grateful if you just gave President Bush a
blowjob
and got him impeached


Doyle;
Ha ha, it seems one of the best of all possible proposals I've had to
serve the Socialist interest so far.  I hope following Paris I too can
appear on the internet with Frat 'boy' Bush.  Downloads away.
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Mark Lause [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Doyle,

Everybody's be much more grateful if you just gave President Bush a blowjob
and got him impeached


Fat chance -- Bush will be born again!
--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


me:

 being in the labor force isn't the same thing as being in power. In
 the US, feminists had to fight to break down the walls set up by the
 old boys network and still haven't succeeded completely.


Yoshie Furuhashi  wrote:

No, but women need their own sources of income aside from what men
bring in if they are to have more bargaining power within families and
communities, and getting into workplaces outside homes brings women
together with other women and men, which is a better political terrain
than household labor that is often solitary in a country above a
certain level of economic development.


their own sources of income? I don't know about Iran, but just
because women earn money from wages doesn't mean they actually own or
control their income. It wasn't that long ago that women's rights to
property ownership were severely limited in the US.

further, in many cases women participate in a workplace in a way that
is controlled in an extremely paternalistic/patronizing/patriarchal
way. It used to be that female teachers in the US had to live up to
all sorts of moral rules, about their sexuality, etc. I doubt that a
country which requires that women wear special clothing that covers
their heads and bodies would be any more liberal here.

It's a little strange to find myself making (Marxist-) feminist points
to Yoshie. The fact is that there is no automatic process that
produces the liberation of women. Throwing women in the workforce can
easily lead to their being thrown out again (as with women in the US
after WW2). Capitalist dynamics only create possibilities for gender
equality: it is women's struggle that can realize the possibilities.
--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


me:

 but while we're on the subject, I think the only way that women's
 equality can be gained is via feminist struggle of the sort we've seen
 (with partial success) in the US. That's why independent organizations
 of, by, and for women are so important, so needed. Equality is not
 handed down by those in power, who benefit from inequality.


Doyle:

Yoshie's already converted you to Homosocial organizing?  Wow this is
spreading like wild fire.


that's BS. If women want to organize in conjunction with men, that's
great. In fact, I see homosocial organizations -- independent
women's caucuses, etc. -- as being crucial to the strength and
democratic organization of heterosocial organizations such as labor
unions, political parties, etc.

I don't favor homosocial organizations of those who currently have
the power (such as white men's clubs).
--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Leigh Meyers


Dan Scanlan wrote:

In my neighborhood the transgender folks are
throwing a big shindig, a come-as-your-were party.

.
ROTFLMM/FAO!

In Santa Cruz, Halloween is the national holiday, and I've often
considered that it should be the one day a year where everyone takes off
the costume.

Leigh
http://leighm.net/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Michael Perelman

I just got back.  I find it hilarious that people can be catty and dismissive of
others while talking about how best to get along.  Gays, straights, transexuals,
Murcans, Europeans, Muslims, all have a poor track record.

An ancient German philospher thought that changing the mode of production might
help.
 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


me:

 but while we're on the subject, I think the only way that women's
 equality can be gained is via feminist struggle of the sort we've seen
 (with partial success) in the US. That's why independent organizations
 of, by, and for women are so important, so needed. Equality is not
 handed down by those in power, who benefit from inequality.


Yoshie:

Feminist struggle exists in Iran, and you can learn about it if you
pay attention to it, and Iran has moved toward a gender-egalitarian
society to the extent it has in part because of that and in part
because of the impacts of the Iran-Iraq War, changing political
economy, etc


I NEVER said that feminist struggle doesn't exist in Iran. I wasn't
talking about Iran's actual situation. (BTW, I'm told that the late
Shah tried to promote gender equality, too.)

Rather, I was talking about your assertion that It will be nice if
Iran will get developed into a homosocial but gender-egalitarian
society on the basis of homosocial organization (gender apartheid,
separate but equal) and that somehow women being in the (paid)
workforce would automatically or naturally or somethingily create
gender equality.

--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Mark Lause wrote:

 Everybody's be much more grateful if you just gave President Bush a blowjob
 and got him impeached


Yoshie:

Fat chance -- Bush will be born again!


can one be born again more than once?

--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

me:
  but while we're on the subject, I think the only way that women's
  equality can be gained is via feminist struggle of the sort we've seen
  (with partial success) in the US. That's why independent organizations
  of, by, and for women are so important, so needed. Equality is not
  handed down by those in power, who benefit from inequality.

Yoshie:
 Feminist struggle exists in Iran, and you can learn about it if you
 pay attention to it, and Iran has moved toward a gender-egalitarian
 society to the extent it has in part because of that and in part
 because of the impacts of the Iran-Iraq War, changing political
 economy, etc

I NEVER said that feminist struggle doesn't exist in Iran. I wasn't
talking about Iran's actual situation. (BTW, I'm told that the late
Shah tried to promote gender equality, too.)

Rather, I was talking about your assertion that It will be nice if
Iran will get developed into a homosocial but gender-egalitarian
society on the basis of homosocial organization (gender apartheid,
separate but equal) and that somehow women being in the (paid)
workforce would automatically or naturally or somethingily create
gender equality.


IMHO, a largely homosocial society, which Japan is, is not the same
thing as a society of gender apartheid, unless you consider PEN-l to
be operating on the basis of gender apartheid, too.  I've never said
that women being in the (paid) workforce would automatically or
naturally or somethingily create gender equality either -- that's a
view that you are unfairly attributing to me, with no evidence
whatsoever.

--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

me:
  being in the labor force isn't the same thing as being in power. In
  the US, feminists had to fight to break down the walls set up by the
  old boys network and still haven't succeeded completely.

Yoshie Furuhashi  wrote:
 No, but women need their own sources of income aside from what men
 bring in if they are to have more bargaining power within families and
 communities, and getting into workplaces outside homes brings women
 together with other women and men, which is a better political terrain
 than household labor that is often solitary in a country above a
 certain level of economic development.

their own sources of income? I don't know about Iran, but just
because women earn money from wages doesn't mean they actually own or
control their income. It wasn't that long ago that women's rights to
property ownership were severely limited in the US.


Muslim women (beginning with Muhammad's first wife, Khadija, who was a
businesswoman) actually already had the right to own their own
property when such a right was not available to women in predominantly
Christian societies.


further, in many cases women participate in a workplace in a way that
is controlled in an extremely paternalistic/patronizing/patriarchal
way. It used to be that female teachers in the US had to live up to
all sorts of moral rules, about their sexuality, etc. I doubt that a
country which requires that women wear special clothing that covers
their heads and bodies would be any more liberal here.


Women in the USA to this day do not enjoy paid maternity leaves common
in almost all countries: out of 168 nations in a Harvard University
study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving
the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and
Swaziland (The Associated Press, U.S. Stands Apart from Other
Nations on Maternity Leave, USA Today, 26 July 2006,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-07-26-maternity-leave_x.htm).

In contrast, in Iran, women enjoy paid maternity leaves: Maternity
leave for female workers is a total of 90 days, at least 45 days of
which have to be taken after childbirth. For multiple births, 14 days
are added to the leave. After her maternity leave has ended, the
female worker returns to her previous position and her period of
absence, upon the approval of the Social Security Organization, will
be factored into her future entitlement benefits (Excerpts from the
Book, Women's Rights in the Laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, by
Shirin Ebadi, Published in Iran in 2002,
http://www.badjens.com/ebadi.html).

There are many things that women in Iran would want to change, but in
some respects they enjoy more feminist social and economic rights than
American women do.  Perhaps, American men such as yourself ought to
first exert yourself to win American women the rights that women in
Iran already enjoy.


It's a little strange to find myself making (Marxist-) feminist points
to Yoshie. The fact is that there is no automatic process that
produces the liberation of women. Throwing women in the workforce can
easily lead to their being thrown out again (as with women in the US
after WW2). Capitalist dynamics only create possibilities for gender
equality: it is women's struggle that can realize the possibilities.


That's because you assume, without evidence, that I'm arguing that
there is an automatic process that produces the liberation of women.
--
Yoshie
http://montages.blogspot.com/
http://mrzine.org
http://monthlyreview.org/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Yoshie Furuhashi  wrote:

IMHO, a largely homosocial society, which Japan is, is not the same
thing as a society of gender apartheid,


I don't know if Japan has gender apartheid or not. (IIRC, I put a
question mark after the word apartheid.) But it seems to me that
almost everybody in positions of power in the state and economy in
Japan is male. That suggests to me that women are subordinate in the
hierarchy.

Apartheid is one kind of homosocial organization. It's best to
acknowledge that possibility rather than blithely talking about
homosocial organization as if there's no possible downside. (In
theory, there could be an egalitarian homosocially-split society. Has
that ever been seen in practice?)


unless you consider PEN-l to
be operating on the basis of gender apartheid, too.


pen-l suffers from not having enough women, yes. LBO-talk is better on
that score, but has some other problems that need not concern us here.

But pen-l does not have anything like gender apartheid. There are no
rules -- either overt or covert -- against women participating as
members. There are no rules against women posting messages.  Usually
women don't participate, but that's not because of men's power as much
as men's obnoxious styles.

Most importantly, pen-l has absolutely no power, no influence, no
import, as an organization. If we men totally dominated it, it would
be like being in charge of something more laughable than the Grand
Duchy of Fenwick (with no foreign aid and no Q-bomb).

Am I right to think that there are feminist and even Marxist-feminist
on-line discussion groups? Feminists -- and women in general -- don't
need pen-l, and so pen-l has no power over them.

Yoshie:

I've never said
that women being in the (paid) workforce would automatically or
naturally or somethingily create gender equality either -- that's a
view that you are unfairly attributing to me, with no evidence
whatsoever.


let us now recap old messages:

Yoshie had asserted:

It will be nice if Iran will get developed into a homosocial

but gender-egalitarian society.

that would be nice, but I replied.

with one sex controlling the state and the economy, who do you

think  will dominate? being relegated to domestic labor has a tendency
to divide and rule.

Yoshie replied to this:

The female proportion of Iran's labor force has gone up, from 20%

in  1980 to 33% in 2004.  Give it a couple more decades, and it will
be close to Japan (41% in 2004) and the USA (46% in 2004). 

I responded:

being in the labor force isn't the same thing as being in power. In

the US, feminists had to fight to break down the walls set up by the
old boys network and still haven't succeeded completely.

then Yoshie responded:

No, but women need their own sources of income aside from what men

bring in if they are to have more bargaining power within families and
communities, and getting into workplaces outside homes brings women
together with other women and men, which is a better political terrain
than household labor that is often solitary in a country above a
certain level of economic development.

in this tennis-like game, it seems to me that Yoshie totally ignores
issues of power. It seems nothing but the old feminism of the 2nd
international, in which the automatic processes of capitalist
development liberate women. I keep on bringing up issues of societal
structure and power. I don't deny that automatic changes in the
labor market create _possibilities_ for women's liberation. But as I
said, it requires women's actual struggle to realize those
possibilities.
--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Leigh Meyers


Michael Perelman wrote:


An ancient German philospher thought that changing the mode of production might 
help.



.
I vote for the Agrarian/Pastoral mode of production with a small
industrial sector dedicated to making the primary mode mores more
effective. Not an indusrtial sector dedicated to suppying a military for
the purpose of territorial expansion as a means of fulfilling a
compulsive want for more... more... more...


That means the advertising industry must die an unnatural death.


Leigh
http://leighm.net/

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Yoshie Furuhashi  wrote:
 IMHO, a largely homosocial society, which Japan is, is not the same
 thing as a society of gender apartheid,

I don't know if Japan has gender apartheid or not. (IIRC, I put a
question mark after the word apartheid.) But it seems to me that
almost everybody in positions of power in the state and economy in
Japan is male. That suggests to me that women are subordinate in the
hierarchy.


Almost everybody in positions of power in the state and economy in
many heterosocial societies have been men, including most other
capitalist states (outside some countries that have established
explicit gender quotas) and all socialist states.  What women need is
explicit gender quotas that ensure 50% representation, rather than
heterosocial society, which in itself makes no difference at all.


 unless you consider PEN-l to
 be operating on the basis of gender apartheid, too.

pen-l suffers from not having enough women, yes. LBO-talk is better on
that score, but has some other problems that need not concern us here.


LBO-talk doesn't have many women posting here either.  Aside from me,
you only see very infrequent postings by several other women, and
that's all.


But pen-l does not have anything like gender apartheid. There are no
rules -- either overt or covert -- against women participating as
members.


That's what I mean by homosocial society, based upon customs rather than laws.


Usually
women don't participate, but that's not because of men's power as much
as men's obnoxious styles.


Men's obnoxious styles come from their social power.


Most importantly, pen-l has absolutely no power, no influence, no
import, as an organization. If we men totally dominated it, it would
be like being in charge of something more laughable than the Grand
Duchy of Fenwick (with no foreign aid and no Q-bomb).


True, but political organizations to the Left of the Democratic Party
-- except ones that are specifically feminist -- also have few women
in leadership positions.  So, if socialists ever take power here in
the USA, they will simply replicate hitherto existing socialist
societies dominated by male leaders.


Am I right to think that there are feminist and even Marxist-feminist
on-line discussion groups? Feminists -- and women in general -- don't
need pen-l, and so pen-l has no power over them.


There are feminist ones, but there isn't any Marxist-feminist one in
the English language.  I'm one of the few women who are Marxist and
feminist and actually are in charge of Marxist publications that
aren't specifically feminist first and foremost.  Then, obnoxious
Marxist men such as Doug feel free to write me out of Marxism, and
obnoxious Marxist men such as Lou purge me from their comfortably
mostly homosocial Marxist environments, so it's no wonder that there
are few women who remain Marxist and feminist.  Men just don't
tolerate such creatures!



let us now recap old messages:

Yoshie had asserted:
 It will be nice if Iran will get developed into a homosocial
but gender-egalitarian society.

that would be nice, but I replied.
 with one sex controlling the state and the economy, who do you
think  will dominate? being relegated to domestic labor has a tendency
to divide and rule.

Yoshie replied to this:
 The female proportion of Iran's labor force has gone up, from 20%
in  1980 to 33% in 2004.  Give it a couple more decades, and it will
be close to Japan (41% in 2004) and the USA (46% in 2004). 

I responded:
 being in the labor force isn't the same thing as being in power. In
the US, feminists had to fight to break down the walls set up by the
old boys network and still haven't succeeded completely.

then Yoshie responded:
No, but women need their own sources of income aside from what men
bring in if they are to have more bargaining power within families and
communities, and getting into workplaces outside homes brings women
together with other women and men, which is a better political terrain
than household labor that is often solitary in a country above a
certain level of economic development.

in this tennis-like game, it seems to me that Yoshie totally ignores
issues of power. It seems nothing but the old feminism of the 2nd
international, in which the automatic processes of capitalist
development liberate women. I keep on bringing up issues of societal
structure and power. I don't deny that automatic changes in the
labor market create _possibilities_ for women's liberation. But as I
said, it requires women's actual struggle to realize those
possibilities.


It should be obvious that I'm talking mainly about possibilities,
unless I specifically state that there will be automatic changes.  But
women's entry into wage labor itself is usually already a result of
women's own struggle, against state policy, company policy, men in
their family, older women in their family, and so on.  You ought to
know that without having that pointed out in every

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


me:

   being in the labor force isn't the same thing as being in power. In
   the US, feminists had to fight to break down the walls set up by the
   old boys network and still haven't succeeded completely.


Yoshie Furuhashi  wrote:

  No, but women need their own sources of income aside from what men
  bring in if they are to have more bargaining power within families and
  communities, and getting into workplaces outside homes brings women
  together with other women and men, which is a better political terrain
  than household labor that is often solitary in a country above a
  certain level of economic development.


me:

 their own sources of income? I don't know about Iran, but just
 because women earn money from wages doesn't mean they actually own or
 control their income. It wasn't that long ago that women's rights to
 property ownership were severely limited in the US.


Yoshie:

Muslim women (beginning with Muhammad's first wife, Khadija, who was a
businesswoman) actually already had the right to own their own
property when such a right was not available to women in predominantly
Christian societies.


how does this work _in practice_ (rather than just in theory)? Is it
possible to dig up one of your on-line sources that talks about the
actual life of women _on the ground_ in Iran?

me:

 further, in many cases women participate in a workplace in a way that
 is controlled in an extremely paternalistic/patronizing/patriarchal
 way. It used to be that female teachers in the US had to live up to
 all sorts of moral rules, about their sexuality, etc. I doubt that a
 country which requires that women wear special clothing that covers
 their heads and bodies would be any more liberal here.


Yoshie:

Women in the USA to this day do not enjoy paid maternity leaves common
in almost all countries: ...

In contrast, in Iran, women enjoy paid maternity leaves: ...


Maternity leave is a good thing.

But when it's handed down from above rather than being won via
struggle from below, the powers that be are likely to take it away or
interpret it in a way that's extremely paternalistic. (Not all
countries' maternity leave rules are the same on paper and in
practice.)

Here's an analogy: it used to be that the US had a pretty good welfare
system (compared to what existed before), handed down to poor women by
LBJ, etc. It was interpreted in an increasingly paternalistic way and
eventually (under Clinton) became work-fare. As far as I can tell, the
positive aspects of the old system arose due to popular struggle, not
due to the benevolence of our rulers or the automatic workings of the
Invisible Hand.


There are many things that women in Iran would want to change, but in
some respects they enjoy more feminist social and economic rights than
American women do.


I wasn't bragging about the success of US feminism compared to other
countries' feminism (and I don't know where you got the idea that I
was). Instead, I was using the country I am most familiar with as a
source of examples. (I try not to talk about countries about which I
don't know very much. If I do talk about other countries, I talk about
those aspects I know about.)

Again, the nature and content of rights might look very different
_in practice_ than on paper, especially since women in Iran have so
little power in their society.

I admit that head-scarves, full-body veils, etc. can be quite
charming, but do the Iranian women dictate what the Iranian men wear?

(Britney and Chrisina might look better in burkas.)


Perhaps, American men such as yourself ought to
first exert yourself to win American women the rights that women in
Iran already enjoy.


getting beyond the implied insult, the key is not for women in the US
to aspire to get what exists [in theory] in some other country (and to
be supported in their aspirations by men) as much as to build on
actual, concrete, aspirations and problems here and now to improve the
independent self-organization of women here and the rights and
privileges that women receive here. (and it's important for men to
support these efforts in a non-paternalistic way.)

if you have any contact with the independent women's organizations in
Iran, Yoshie, maybe you could help build bridges between them and such
organizations here.


 It's a little strange to find myself making (Marxist-) feminist points
 to Yoshie. The fact is that there is no automatic process that
 produces the liberation of women. Throwing women in the workforce can
 easily lead to their being thrown out again (as with women in the US
 after WW2). Capitalist dynamics only create possibilities for gender
 equality: it is women's struggle that can realize the possibilities.



That's because you assume, without evidence, that I'm arguing that
there is an automatic process that produces the liberation of women.


if you were to present your assertipms about automatic processes in
conjunction with acknowledgement of the existence of power structures

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Louis Proyect


Yoshie wrote:

Marxist men such as Lou purge me from their comfortably mostly homosocial
Marxist environments, so it's no wonder that there
are few women who remain Marxist and feminist.


You got purged because you ignored my instructions to stop posting about
Iran. In fact, as I pointed out to Marxmail, you undercut your own aims by
being so relentless in your defense of the Iranian government in a way that
is typical of those Friendship committees for Russia or China of yore. Or
Jared Israel when he was doing PR for the Serb Republic, or now the
government of Israel. You are so off-putting in your selective use of data
and your refusal to entertain opposing ideas that it will drive some people
to actually develop an aversion to the government of Iran--like Pavlov's
dogs in reverse. I had to restrain myself from signing Joanne Landy's
latest open letter on Iran after reading your 9 thousandth defense of the
Islamic Republic. It is like Netflix. I found myself wanting to kill the
people who ran it after having their stupid pop-up ads show up on every
website I visited. It was only after an old friend told me that it was a
worthwhile enterprise that I joined. Who knows, maybe your real goal is to
get people to hate Shi'ite radicalism rather than to open up their eyes to
a new way of looking at things. If this is the case, you are doing a damned
good job.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


Greetings Economists,
On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Jim Devine wrote:


In fact, I see homosocial organizations -- independent
women's caucuses, etc. -- as being crucial to the strength and
democratic organization of heterosocial organizations such as labor
unions, political parties, etc.


Doyle,
I was just kidding.  But you raise a serious point here. Democratic
organizing means how people use talk to shape decisions in groups.  In
all milieus, Homosocial, or Heterosocial there is a critical question
not just of talk but social attachment.  And how that achieves social
power.  You recognize that by writing;

JD writes;
But as I said, it requires women's actual struggle to realize those
possibilities.

Doyle;
One must be proactive then about what is the problem.  It is not just
women who are responsible for the issue.  It is economic production or
work processes of social attachment that result in women being the
Second Sex.  In my thinking words like Homosocial don't give insight
about how same sex social environments yield inequality or equality.

Sharing knowledge by sex is not defined in terms of social equality by
Marxists.  Emotional attachments are women's work.  What's a Marxist to
do?  The old boys networks effectively exclude women.  What's a Marxist
to do?  The glass ceiling stops women from getting to the top of
hierarchies.

When I say some emotions are asocial, disgust, and shame, there is no
Marxist resonance?  No sense of the work involved?  What is the social
value of emotional attachments?  Is it even material?

Sexuality is practically speaking off the table in Marxist discussions.
 Only amongst select women with a left slant does sex become explicit.
It's amazing in the sense of Yoshie's comment on homosocial milieus
that Lesbians are such a profound source of support for the left.

JD
in this tennis-like game, it seems to me that Yoshie totally ignores
issues of power. It seems nothing but the old feminism of the 2nd
international, in which the automatic processes of capitalist
development liberate women. I keep on bringing up issues of societal
structure and power. I don't deny that automatic changes in the
labor market create _possibilities_ for women's liberation. But as I
said, it requires women's actual struggle to realize those
possibilities.

Doyle;
The problem here is to struggle against what?  As Yoshie points out in
Leftist organization there is usually male dominance.  You claim some
homosocial organization is necessary to Women's struggle.  Why is it
that Women have to go to a single sex format to achieve social power?
It's because there is no Marxist understanding of the work of emotional
attachment.  It's a taboo that doesn't get breached.
Doyle

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Yoshie:
 Muslim women (beginning with Muhammad's first wife, Khadija, who was a
 businesswoman) actually already had the right to own their own
 property when such a right was not available to women in predominantly
 Christian societies.

how does this work _in practice_ (rather than just in theory)? Is it
possible to dig up one of your on-line sources that talks about the
actual life of women _on the ground_ in Iran?


It seems to me that you, as well as many men, are getting too used to
the idea of not doing their own research and having women do it for
them.  What makes them think they can opine about Muslim women in
faraway nations without doing any research at all on their own?

That said, here's another useful article:
Louise Halper, Law and Women's Agency in Post-Revolutionary Iran,
Harvard Journal of Law  Gender 28, Winter 2005
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol28/halper.pdf.  It's
focused on women's struggle for better laws and practice of marriage
and divorce, and the question of property is discussed in that
context.


me:
  further, in many cases women participate in a workplace in a way that
  is controlled in an extremely paternalistic/patronizing/patriarchal
  way. It used to be that female teachers in the US had to live up to
  all sorts of moral rules, about their sexuality, etc. I doubt that a
  country which requires that women wear special clothing that covers
  their heads and bodies would be any more liberal here.

Yoshie:
 Women in the USA to this day do not enjoy paid maternity leaves common
 in almost all countries: ...

 In contrast, in Iran, women enjoy paid maternity leaves: ...

Maternity leave is a good thing.


So, what are you doing to win it here?  Only women are supposed to
struggle for it?


But when it's handed down from above rather than being won via
struggle from below, the powers that be are likely to take it away or
interpret it in a way that's extremely paternalistic.


Why do you assume that the maternity leave in Iran was --
automatically? -- handed down from above to women rather than women
winning it, since you say that nothing happens automatically?  It's an
interesting contradiction in your thought.


Here's an analogy: it used to be that the US had a pretty good welfare
system (compared to what existed before), handed down to poor women by
LBJ, etc. It was interpreted in an increasingly paternalistic way and
eventually (under Clinton) became work-fare. As far as I can tell, the
positive aspects of the old system arose due to popular struggle, not
due to the benevolence of our rulers or the automatic workings of the
Invisible Hand.


What's missing in your account is women in welfare rights
organizations, trade unions, etc. actively fighting to shape the
welfare system, the sort of women's struggles that Mimi Abramowitz,
Jill Quadagno, etc. have written about.


 There are many things that women in Iran would want to change, but in
 some respects they enjoy more feminist social and economic rights than
 American women do.

I wasn't bragging about the success of US feminism compared to other
countries' feminism (and I don't know where you got the idea that I
was). Instead, I was using the country I am most familiar with as a
source of examples. (I try not to talk about countries about which I
don't know very much. If I do talk about other countries, I talk about
those aspects I know about.)

Again, the nature and content of rights might look very different
_in practice_ than on paper, especially since women in Iran have so
little power in their society.


Again, you are assuming lack of power without bothering to prove it.


I admit that head-scarves, full-body veils, etc. can be quite
charming, but do the Iranian women dictate what the Iranian men wear?


Islam has male as well as female codes of modesty, and codes differ
from one society to another (e.g., beards were de rigeur in
Afghanistan under the Taliban).

As a matter of fact, all societies have gender-differentiated dress
codes.  You can transgress them, but only at your cost.


(Britney and Chrisina might look better in burkas.)

 Perhaps, American men such as yourself ought to
 first exert yourself to win American women the rights that women in
 Iran already enjoy.

getting beyond the implied insult, the key is not for women in the US
to aspire to get what exists [in theory] in some other country (and to
be supported in their aspirations by men) as much as to build on
actual, concrete, aspirations and problems here and now to improve the
independent self-organization of women here and the rights and
privileges that women receive here. (and it's important for men to
support these efforts in a non-paternalistic way.)


Well, the fact remains that American women do not have the right to
paid maternity leaves that almost all other women in the world have,
and American male leftists are too busy looking at veiled women in the
Middle East to

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Yoshie, now:
 Almost everybody in positions of power in the state and economy in
 many heterosocial societies have been men, including most other
 capitalist states (outside some countries that have established
 explicit gender quotas) and all socialist states.  What women need is
 explicit gender quotas ...

you've got to admit that western capitalist countries have allowed
_some_ women to be in power (to be as bad as men). Some state
governors in the US have been women, as have some senators and CEOs.
In my cursory understanding of the issue, the US is doing much better
than Japan on this count (which of course is only one dimension of the
issue).


Well, there has not been any female head of state in the USA, but all
three countries of the subcontinent -- Bangladesh, India, and
Pakistan, two of which are predominantly Muslim and all of which are
homosocial societies -- have.

Outside the Nordic countries, women's representation in parliaments in
the OECD nations isn't a whole lot better than the rest, especially
when we take serious economic and/or political problems that plague
the rest and relative absence of them in the OECD nations into
account:

Regional Averages
Single House Upper House  Both Houses
or lower House  or Senate   combined
Nordic
countries40.0% 40.0%
Americas20.6% 21.6%  20.7%
Europe - OSCE
member countries
including Nordic
countries19.2%   16.9%18.8%
Europe - OSCE
member countries
excluding Nordic
countries17.3%16.9%17.2%
Sub-Saharan
Africa  17.0%17.6%17.1%
Asia16.4%17.6%16.5%
Pacific 12.1%27.4%14.1%
Arab States   8.2% 6.0%  7.7%
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm


what to do specifically about this problem (quotas, etc.) is another
issue, for another day.


The Nordic countries have achieved conditions close to gender parity
due to political parties adopting quotas:
http://archive.idea.int/women/parl/ch4c.htm.  Without quotas, the
glass ceiling appears to be about 17%.


Yoshie:
 LBO-talk doesn't have many women posting here either.  Aside from me,
 you only see very infrequent postings by several other women, and
 that's all.

I dunno. It seems there are _more_ women on LBO-talk than on pen-l
(which is what I said above).


PEN-l is, after all, a progressive ECONOMISTS network, and men and
women are still socialized to think that economics is a male thing to
do.  It's still probably a whole lot more male-dominated discipline
than, say, English, anthropology, and so on.  Besides, PEN-l is more
Marxist than LBO-talk in subscriber demographics, and, alas, the more
to the Left you travel, the fewer women you see!


  Usually
  women don't participate, but that's not because of men's power as much
  as men's obnoxious styles.

 Men's obnoxious styles come from their social power.

but pen-l itself has abolutely no power.


Men who comprise them enjoy gender privilege, a form of social power,
such as the privilege to assume that they can speak louder than women,
lecture women about feminism, etc. even when they know nothing about
the subject!


 True, but political organizations to the Left of the Democratic Party
 -- except ones that are specifically feminist -- also have few women
 in leadership positions.  So, if socialists ever take power here in
 the USA, they will simply replicate hitherto existing socialist
 societies dominated by male leaders.

My contention is that socialist organizations have to practice gender
equality (something that's much more likely with independent women's
caucuses than without) if they are ever to take power.


But they haven't and still don't.


 There are feminist ones, but there isn't any Marxist-feminist one in
 the English language. ...

obviously, that's something to be fought against.


It's too late.  Most feminist women have given up on Marxism in the USA.


  Then, obnoxious
 Marxist men such as Doug feel free to write me out of Marxism, and
 obnoxious Marxist men such as Lou purge me from their comfortably
 mostly homosocial Marxist environments, so it's no wonder that there
 are few women who remain Marxist and feminist.  Men just don't
 tolerate such creatures!

are personal insults useful? how?


Women have the right to point out problem behavior on the part of men,
except men here don't support it unless it is exercised by women in
Iran!


Yoshie:
 It should be obvious that I'm talking mainly about possibilities,
 unless I specifically state that there will be automatic changes.

I kept on bringing up obstacles to these possibilities and you seemed
to ignore my points.


What makes you assume that

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


I wrote:

 how does this work _in practice_ (rather than just in theory)? Is it
 possible to dig up one of your on-line sources that talks about the
 actual life of women _on the ground_ in Iran?


shit! g-mail threw away my entire message! right when I finished it!
maybe tomorrow...

JD

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


I  wrote:

shit! g-mail threw away my entire message! right when I finished it!
maybe tomorrow...


here's my response to Yoshie's message:
okay, I'll try again. This time I'll keep it a good deal shorter.

On 9/2/06, Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

It seems to me that you, as well as many men, are getting too used to
the idea of not doing their own research and having women do it for
them.


what is the point of a personal insult?

NB: I didn't insult you. Instead, I criticized your ideas (as I
interpreted them).

BTW, you don't have to do research it and post it to pen-l if you
don't want to. It seems that you _volunteer_ to be exploited.


What makes them think they can opine about Muslim women in
faraway nations without doing any research at all on their own?


I do have other things -- including research -- to do. And I know that
the kind of research that someone like myself could do on the subject
(not knowing Persian) would be very superficial at best. I don't know
the literature, the debates, the consensus, and thus can't put things
found by googling into context.


That said, here's another useful article:
Louise Halper, Law and Women's Agency in Post-Revolutionary Iran...


I read the conclusion of that article. It fits with what I said. Women
won some good things in Iran only _by fighting for them_.


So, what are you doing to win it here?  Only women are supposed to
struggle for it?


no. But women know what's best for women better than men do. They must
be organized for themselves -- and be supported by men, in a
non-paternalistic way.


Why do you assume that the maternity leave in Iran was --
automatically? -- handed down from above to women rather than women
winning it, since you say that nothing happens automatically?  It's an
interesting contradiction in your thought.


I never said that nothing happens automatically! Market-like
processes are pretty automatic. (It's like the Invisible Hand, but is
often disastrous, in unlike Smith's presumption).

Market-like processes can undermine traditional institutions (like the
patriarchal family, when young women are pulled into factories).
However, this doesn't lead to _liberation_ in an automatic way.

By definition, things handed down from on high cannot be done so
automatically. It's an expression -- a use -- of power.

me:

 Here's an analogy: it used to be that the US had a pretty good welfare
 system (compared to what existed before), handed down to poor women by
 LBJ, etc. It was interpreted in an increasingly paternalistic way and
 eventually (under Clinton) became work-fare. As far as I can tell, the
 positive aspects of the old system arose due to popular struggle, not
 due to the benevolence of our rulers or the automatic workings of the
 Invisible Hand.


Yoshie:

What's missing in your account is women in welfare rights
organizations, trade unions, etc. actively fighting to shape the
welfare system, the sort of women's struggles that Mimi Abramowitz,
Jill Quadagno, etc. have written about.


what was I talking about when I referred to popular struggle above?

me:

 Again, the nature and content of rights might look very different
 _in practice_ than on paper, especially since women in Iran have so
 little power in their society.


Yoshie:

Again, you are assuming lack of power without bothering to prove it.


Nothing in the empirical world can really be proved. However, the
Halper article fits with what I said.


Islam has male as well as female codes of modesty, and codes differ
from one society to another (e.g., beards were de rigeur in
Afghanistan under the Taliban).


but the beard thing was imposed using male-on-male violence. It wasn't
a female-on-male thing.

(patriarchy also foists itself on powerless men.)


As a matter of fact, all societies have gender-differentiated dress
codes.  You can transgress them, but only at your cost.


right, but in the West such codes have started to break down. Even
men in skirts have begun to achieve some acceptance. Weirdly, women
seem to have more choice about clothing than men do. Women can wear
slacks _or_ skirts.


 (Britney and Chrisina might look better in burkas.)


I hope you realized I was joking here.


Well, the fact remains that American women do not have the right to
paid maternity leaves that almost all other women in the world have,
and American male leftists are too busy looking at veiled women in the
Middle East to help American women get what they need.


I don't care what people wear. The issue is the _imposition_ of dress codes.

Opposition to imposed dress codes seems to mesh well with other
defenses of people's rights, such as pushing for maternity leave.

Yoshie:

It seems to me that, on a list like this, the necessity of both
changes in larger political economic conditions and self organizing by
women (or any other group) ought to be a given, rather than stated in
each posting.  After all, I'm not writing a primer to Marxism and
feminism here!


that's

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


I think I'll go on a vacation from pen-l tomorrow. I actually had
something I had to do today.

me:

 you've got to admit that western capitalist countries have allowed
 _some_ women to be in power (to be as bad as men). Some state
 governors in the US have been women, as have some senators and CEOs.
 In my cursory understanding of the issue, the US is doing much better
 than Japan on this count (which of course is only one dimension of the
 issue).


Yoshie:

Well, there has not been any female head of state in the USA, but all
three countries of the subcontinent -- Bangladesh, India, and
Pakistan, two of which are predominantly Muslim and all of which are
homosocial societies -- have.


right.


Outside the Nordic countries, women's representation in parliaments in
the OECD nations isn't a whole lot better than the rest, especially
when we take serious economic and/or political problems that plague
the rest and relative absence of them in the OECD nations into
account:


why exclude the Nordic countries? If they can do it, why not we?

me:

 I dunno. It seems there are _more_ women on LBO-talk than on pen-l
 (which is what I said above).


Yoshie:

PEN-l is, after all, a progressive ECONOMISTS network, and men and
women are still socialized to think that economics is a male thing to
do.


I hope that's changing. My department is currently 30% female (and
rising). Two-thirds of our recent new hires were women. (of course the
neoclassical ideology is largely masculine in style.)


It's still probably a whole lot more male-dominated discipline
than, say, English, anthropology, and so on.  Besides, PEN-l is more
Marxist than LBO-talk in subscriber demographics, and, alas, the more
to the Left you travel, the fewer women you see!


if that's true, it's something to be fought.


 but pen-l itself has abolutely no power.

Men who comprise them enjoy gender privilege, a form of social power,
such as the privilege to assume that they can speak louder than women,
lecture women about feminism, etc. even when they know nothing about
the subject!


I really know nothing about feminism _per se_ (except that there are a
large number of splits and debates). Beyond being the expression of
women's collective needs, it's an abstraction.

But I do know that no-one can claim rights without a fight.

by the way, how does one speak louder on-line? I know it's possible
to TYPE ALL IN CAPS but that simply closes people's eyes.


It's too late.  Most feminist women have given up on Marxism in the USA.


and they've embraced liberalism? isn't that the general trend, even
ignoring the sins of the Marxist Males?

me:

 are personal insults useful? how?

Women have the right to point out problem behavior on the part of men,
except men here don't support it unless it is exercised by women in
Iran!


prove it. does this apply to _all_ men?

It seems to me that you come to this kind of conclusion because most
men (and maybe some women?) interpret your stuff as defending the
government of Iran.

Yoshie:

  It should be obvious that I'm talking mainly about possibilities,
  unless I specifically state that there will be automatic changes.


me:

 I kept on bringing up obstacles to these possibilities and you seemed
 to ignore my points.


Yoshie:

What makes you assume that I am ignorant of them?


you had lots of chances to bring them up, but you didn't.

BTW, I choose words carefully. I didn't say ignorant. I said ignored.

me:

 No, I don't think that women's entry into the paid labor force is
 primarily a result of women's own struggle. Usually, it's like Rosie
 the Riveter: with so many of the men off at war and excess demand for
 workers developing domestically, the US government pulled the women in
 (and then tossed out when the war ended). In many cases in poorer
 countries (and in the US in an earlier era), women (especially younger
 ones) are brought into waged employment because (male) employers see
 them as more docile than men (while their families let them go because
 commercialization of agriculture implies that they desperately need
 the money).

The state and employers' needs are pull factors; women's needs and
desires are push factors.


right, but in traditional patriarchal organizations, there was a long
period of relative balance between patriarchal power and female (and
young male) revolt. It was a long enough period of balance that people
often don't remember things being different. But then capitalist
and/or the state come in and break the balance.
--
Jim Devine / But the wage of sin don't adjust for inflation. It's a
buyer's market when you sell your soul. -- Jeffery Foucault, Ghost
Repeater.

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao


On 9/2/06, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

BTW, you don't have to do research it and post it to pen-l if you
don't want to. It seems that you _volunteer_ to be exploited.


I actually care about and am interested in topics under discussion,
such as Iran, feminism, women in Muslim societies, etc., unlike men
who have taken no such interest in them -- hence their lack of
knowledge and willingness to volunteer to look for information on
their own.

I have already done my homework, and I have thousands of relevant
articles at hand.


 That said, here's another useful article:
 Louise Halper, Law and Women's Agency in Post-Revolutionary Iran...

I read the conclusion of that article. It fits with what I said. Women
won some good things in Iran only _by fighting for them_.


That's precisely what I have always said.  Why do you think that you
know that and I don't?  Because you are a man, I assume.


 So, what are you doing to win it here?  Only women are supposed to
 struggle for it?

no. But women know what's best for women better than men do. They must
be organized for themselves -- and be supported by men, in a
non-paternalistic way.


The way you talk to me is quite paternalistic, IMHO: Yes, I must tell
her that women won some good things in Iran only _by fighting for
them_.  Otherwise, she, an ignoramus, wouldn't know!  But I suppose
you can't hear how you sound yourself.


 Why do you assume that the maternity leave in Iran was --
 automatically? -- handed down from above to women rather than women
 winning it, since you say that nothing happens automatically?  It's an
 interesting contradiction in your thought.

I never said that nothing happens automatically! Market-like
processes are pretty automatic. (It's like the Invisible Hand, but is
often disastrous, in unlike Smith's presumption).

Market-like processes can undermine traditional institutions (like the
patriarchal family, when young women are pulled into factories).
However, this doesn't lead to _liberation_ in an automatic way.


That's what I pointed out to begin with: an increasing entry of women
into wage labor in Iran.  So, we are back to square one, after your
gratuitous lectures.


Yoshie:
 What's missing in your account is women in welfare rights
 organizations, trade unions, etc. actively fighting to shape the
 welfare system, the sort of women's struggles that Mimi Abramowitz,
 Jill Quadagno, etc. have written about.

what was I talking about when I referred to popular struggle above?


The term popular struggles suggests as if men and women participated
equally in welfare rights struggles, which has not been the case.
That's probably why the struggles have been defeated, since men, as
well as better-off women, did not participate and did not make them
popular struggles.


Yoshie:
 Again, you are assuming lack of power without bothering to prove it.

Nothing in the empirical world can really be proved. However, the
Halper article fits with what I said.


I don't think so.  Halper actually takes careful note of what women
actually did to change the laws and practice of marriage and divorce,
whereas what you suggested initially said nothing of the sort, giving
a static picture of women as passive victims.


 Islam has male as well as female codes of modesty, and codes differ
 from one society to another (e.g., beards were de rigeur in
 Afghanistan under the Taliban).

but the beard thing was imposed using male-on-male violence. It wasn't
a female-on-male thing.


In a lot of cases, dress codes and other discriminations are imposed
by women on women.  There is a good film titled Moolaadé, which
focuses on a conflict over genital cutting in Senegal, and the film
makes clear that cutting is actually done by women who have had it
done to them when they were young and swear by it as a tradition, as
is the case in most societies that practice it.  A feminist struggle
is seldom as simple as conservative men vs. progressive women -- quite
often, it's a struggle among women first and foremost.


(patriarchy also foists itself on powerless men.)


That's the difference between patriarchy and sexism.  The former works
by patriarchs (sometimes mediated by matriarchs) subordinating younger
men as well as women.


 As a matter of fact, all societies have gender-differentiated dress
 codes.  You can transgress them, but only at your cost.

right, but in the West such codes have started to break down. Even
men in skirts have begun to achieve some acceptance. Weirdly, women
seem to have more choice about clothing than men do. Women can wear
slacks _or_ skirts.


Yes.  That is because skirts are mainly worn by women whose status is
lower than men, while pants are regarded either as masculine or
unisex.  So, men who wear skirts lose a lot of male privilege and
sometimes are treated as worse than women, for they get reduced to
women's status or below it, being unnatural women.


 Well, the fact remains that American women do not have the right to

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao

2006-09-02 Thread Michael Perelman

Jim just signed off.  I guess I cannot question his choice.  This debate 
represented
some of the worst in e-mail exchanges.  People's motives were impugned.  Insults
flew.  All the while, people were making lofty proclamations without really
listening to each other.

And, as I noted before, the irony is that the subject was about building 
solidarity.

Not only did Jim sign off (hopefully temporarily), but others hesitate to post 
for
fear of saying the wrong thing.


On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 05:08:14PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
 I think I'll go on a vacation from pen-l tomorrow. I actually had
 something I had to do today.


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com

Re: [PEN-L] bye-bye Mao