The Feminist Voice

on
Chapter 16 is dedicated to the The Feminist Voice. This chapter was another source of consternation to the street critics of Occupy Chicago in the waning days of July 2012. The critique was that there was so few women authors sited in the work. It only goes to show that even the best of Occupy did not read what they were criticizing. This entire chapter was posted in the Occupy Observer on December 17, 2011. If the critics did not read it, it was by deliberate choice. Freda Adler, a feminist Criminologist, as well as Gloria Steinmem, are quoted in the chapter. The critics chose to listen to their comrades rather than investigate the validity of the criticism.

The work also address wage disparity of women in the workforce. It is specific to the technical industry just prior to Y2K, but it is addressed.
Women new hires were coming into the field at $30,000 a year less than their more experienced male counterparts. While the experience level may be the arguable factor, the new hires had far better credentials in an industry which was woefully unstable from the mid-1990s.
Again the work was denounced by the critics without having been read. Intellectual honesty was trumped by liberal political correctness in the latter days of Occupy in Chicago.

One of the most scathing critical denunciation came form a prominent leftist lawyer associated with a Liberal Law Center in Chicago. It was general in nature, and trollish. According to this one lawyer, men in the United States were not oppressed.

This one statement, succinctly denounced all the studies sited during the Occupy Wall Street movement. It also flies in the face of new studies currently surfacing: Forty percent of all domestic violence victims are men.

The CDC report (sited above) points out:
But even if one ignores the double-counting of rape and physical violence, the number of female victims of rape and/or physical violence is 5,427,000 for women, contrasted with 5,365,000 male victims of physical violence, so it is safe to say that about half of the victims of physical violence are men.
 Members of Occupy Family Court attempted to bring this to light in 2011/2012, but were utterly drowned out by the louder feminist voices in Occupy Chicago. It this cloud of willful ignorance, a feminist bully is praised for abusing men, Feminist Vigilantes are heroes.

In this era of winner take all capitalism, no one is safe from abuse, or violence. This is still the real message which needs to surface seven years after Wealth, Women, and War was published.

Wealth, Women, and War is released in accordance with the solidarity principals of Occupy Wall Street adopted on February 9, 2012.
Cliff Potts
October 15, 2014


The Feminist Voice
  

There is an argument among current feminists that if a woman were president there would be fewer wars. This is alluded to in the Gloria Steinem statement concerning the fall of the Berlin wall being a “feminist revolution.” 
Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margret Thatcher, went to war against Argentina in 1982. The South American nation asserted it claim to the Falkland Islands dating back to the 1830s. At the time the island was home to sheep, penguins, and a few British meteorologists. Other than having the Union Jack flying over it, it had no value to the UK other than being one of the last remnants of the once great empire.
Scientifically, there have been a number of studies concerning the gender difference in crime. Freda Adler, in her work Sisters in Crime: The rise of the New Female Criminal, notes “that between 1960 and 1972, female arrest increased 168 percent for burglary, 277 percent for robbery, 280 percent for embezzlement, and over 300 percent for larceny.”[1] As women became more liberated, and moved into the more traditional male roles in the workplace, the opportunity for crime increased and so did the incidence of crime committed by women.
The one thing that did become apparent even under the critical eye of  radical feminists is that the same economic factors which led to crime for men also apply to women. Crime was committed “among women who were trapped in economically marginal positions.”[2] The lack of economic opportunity leads to criminal behavior.
In a detailed study of 372 cases, gender played very little difference in criminal behavior. Antisocial attitudes, antisocial temperament, family factors, personal vocational economic achievements, psychopathology, a class origin affected men and women equally as precursor factors when determining criminal behavior on an individual basis.[3]
In a non-scientific study conducted over the past four years, women’s attitudes about themselves varied greatly. “Women, for the most part,” as confessed by one woman under the anonymity of a screen name, “want to be treated as equals when it suits them, submissive when it suits them, superiors when it suits them, and as [sex objects] when it suits them.”[4]
Another woman stated emphatically that it is scientific fact that “women are smarter than men.”[5] She cited the day’s news about women accelerating in college while the male counterparts are lagging. The story itself pointed to the various women’s programs giving women a boost up while programs for men had been cut due to the redirection of resources.
Unlike the African American population which has been victimized by institutional racism left over from the slavery era, the victimization of women is not as clear except in the aspects of wage disparity. However, the political agenda of the radical feminist is a ready tool to be exploited by the corporations.
How much difference does choice make in the variations of resource allotment and opportunity? It is of note in the technical industry that the increase of women in the traditional male technical administration roles coincides with a general decrease in pay levels for both genders. As women entered the discipline there was a trend towards reduction in the wages paid in general. This could be due to women accepting less pay for the same duties, or simply that there were more people of both genders in the professional field. Regardless, it allowed corporations to significantly reduce wages. Some would call this increased opportunity for women. However, in the late 1990s the disparity was substantial. Women new hires were coming into the field at $30,000 a year less than their more experienced male counterparts. While the experience level may be the arguable factor, the new hires had far better credentials in an industry which was woefully unstable from the mid-1990s. Often seasoned workers, maybe a few years older at best, were simply eliminated in favor of the lower paid women new hires. Added to this fluid situation was the rise of what is now called the “bully boss” managing by intimidation. These highly unprofessional “bully bosses” had the sanction of the corporate officers. More and more corporations bought into the concept of confrontational management. This reduction in IT staff in general usually meant that the women worked more clients for half the money under abusive management.
There is, based on social norms of society, an increasing de-patriarching process, where women are presented as the decision makers in how resources are spent. The perceived submissive role may be to the woman’s advantage as she consumes the resources acquired by her male counterpart. Within this discussion is the chronic charge that the male does not contribute to the home, but that too is stereotypical absurdity as men do laundry, dishes, cook, change diapers, run errands and engage in labor outside the home. Gloria Steinem once quipped, “I've yet to be on a campus where most women weren't worrying about some aspect of combining marriage, children, and a career. I've yet to find one where many men were worrying about the same thing.”[6]
What the editor of Ms. Magazine in her obviously sexist remarks failed to realize that men do worry, they are taught by society to “suck it up and deal with it.” Moreover, even an honest rapport with someone who has an obvious political agenda seldom happens.
Women groups, and the media, lavish praise on women’s activities. The League of Women's Voters, active since the 1920s, wields disproportionate weight in the political arena. With assertions that they are nonpartisan, they neglect candidates from parties which they consider to be on the fringe. Since they are the host of many of the televised debates they assist the portal of the political landscape as being a flat, unimaginative, two party system. In the name of women they perpetuate the status-quo. This serves the corporations and their agenda quite well.
The media focuses on the various activities of women not because it is ethically correct, but because it brings them into the audience so they can receive the commercial pitches aimed at them.
In an impromptu interview on the web, a man was detailing his credentials which included many years in Information Technology and a number of published works, and bemoaning that he was underemployed in a dead end service sector job. The interviewer retorted that he was “common as beer.” On Oprah, she bemoans how sad it is that a woman does not think herself special, and brings all her viewers together in a mass support group to help some “fallen angel.” Oprah’s motivation is unclear, is she really trying to help, or is this show for the sake of ratings. The aims of corporations by backing this type of programming are obvious: they target women because women have control of discretionary income. Men are only honored and praised if they have a six figure income on the board of some corporation making a good return on continuing the struggle between races and genders.
It is true that woman were portrayed in the media in subservient roles in the 1940s and 1950s. This is rather obvious in situational comedies as Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, and the George Burns and Gracie Allen Show. That shift, however, began with the Jackie Gleason’s portrayal of Ralph Kramden in the Honeymooners, Fred Flintstone, based on the Gleason character, in the Flintstones, Carroll O'Connor’s portrayal of Archie Bunker in All in the Family, and Homer Simpson in the Simpsons. While to various degrees each character is funny, they all portray men in current society to be mindless goofs for the amusement and entertainment of their spouses unless they just happen to be a Donald Trump clone. Moreover, if a man is not entertaining and amusing he is shunned by the media because his thoughtfulness and intellectual capacity is seen as boring.
Since women now have cultural approval, which was a need which had to be achieved, they now, due to the subliminal current of the media images, have the permission to belittle and undermine the judgment of the male counterpart in society. Of course, inclusive in that is the current culture’s propensity to use such tactics as a competitive advantage for economic gain. So effectively, the woman in society has “come into her own,” culturally. Men, however, have become so emasculated, uncertain, and indecisive, that they will not take corrective action for obvious social decay unless they have the woman’s approval.
There is an additional undercurrent to this situation, men, from birth, look to their mothers for approval. That connection, in a healthy, mature man, is switched from his mother to his wife. That is not a function of the “fragile” male ego; it is how men function due to the biological connection, and bonding, which occurs at birth. When the cultural norm deprives him of that “nod of approval” paralysis sets in. He lacks direction on the most fundamental level.
The woman is not stupid, she is not immature, she does not lack judgment, she is simply bombarded with calls to empty her wallet for the good of some corporation. Madison Avenue has focused on the economic liberation of women in a successful bid to grab her wealth before she has had a notion of investment as a co-owner of the corporate structure.
This all becomes more absurd when one considers that Wal-Mart is the least nurturing corporation in the United States today, has one of the largest sexual discrimination suits in history pending against it, and is bent on building the economy in China at the expanse of the local community. The only thing that can be said in Wal-Mart’s defense is that they are playing by the rules in the current society based on the current application of the capitalist ideal.
Even Enron and MCI WorldCom, were playing by the rules of the capitalist system which existed during their rise to prominence and fortune. From the perspective of a Telecommunications Management professional the demise of MCI WorldCom may have more to do with it becoming a political scapegoat, following so closely behind Enron’s failure.
So where does this leave us? Men look to women for approval. That has been engrained from birth. Women are liberated and seeking to flex their independence by “shopping,” or contributing to the corporate coffers. So long as she stays afloat she will continue to ignore the bodies upon which she stands, this too is in conjunction with the capitalist ideal as presented in the world today. What is even more disturbing is that the woman’s second income is not only going to the corporate coffers.
According to Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi, in The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke,[7] the problem surfacing now is that couples with kids, due to the need to find better schools and safer neighborhoods, are being pushed into bankruptcy. The lack of economic opportunity and the perception of higher crime rates is forcing people to find safer living conditions in more expensive surroundings. This is again a response to fulfill a need at level two of Maslow’s pyramid. This may also indicate that we are further along the decline than originally projected.
Two observations become noteworthy: One, a fundamental relationship where the man is supportive of the woman usually results in a higher percentage of social action toward a given agenda. That agenda may be dubious and primitive, but he is more likely to be boisterous in support of his position because he has the support of his wife. Two, many feminists are lesbian. Some are outspoken in their opposition to men on any level, push men out of the equation, and lose the support of half the active base in society. This position also tends to lose the support of their heterosexual sisters.
Until women decide that the general condition of society, especially among the enlightened and educated couples, needs to be fixed, there will be no more progress made. Men are not mind-readers they need the verbal and overt “go ahead” to address any issue.




[1] Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (Eds.). (2003). Criminological Theory: Past to Present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, p. 399.
[2] Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (Eds.). (2003). Criminological Theory: Past to Present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, p. 339.
[3] Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (Eds.). (2003). Criminological Theory: Past to Present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company, p. 402.
[4] My own research from various on-line communications; original source lost over time.
[5] Gloria Steinem Quotes (2004). Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gloria_steinem.html
[6] Gloria Steinem Quotes (2004). Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gloria_steinem.html

[7] Potier, B. (2007, June 4). Middle-class income doesn't buy middle-class lifestyle. HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES.

Location: Hayfield, MN 55940, USA

Comments

Post a Comment