Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Where is this wrong: Capitalist system exploits women
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 11:23AM #1
Kwinters
Posts: 22,595
Marxist feminism criticises the exploitative ways in which capitalism uses women's labor and bodies to benefit the rich and powerful.


Capitalist system inherently super-exploits productive labor of women. Reading this bit here, or even better click the link on the blog and read the whole article, where does Marxist feminism not use observable evidence to draw its conclusions?
Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 1:03PM #2
nnsecu
Posts: 1,565

What a complete load of one sided biased crap.


"The same alleged “innate differences” that were used to explain male-dominated professions are now used to justify refusing women particular positions."


Part of my current job is supervising a group of welders.  yes there are fewer women in that group, but it is there choice.  I dont blame then it is often well over 150 in these tanks and not a very pleasant environment to work in.  We actually are activity seeking more women.  Currently a male has to hold a 75lbs above their heads for 5 min as a requirement, a female is only required to hold 35lbs for 3 min.  Now that is an example of sexism, both should have the same physical demands if they are to be considered for the same job.


"If she takes any time off after having the baby, will this affect her chances at getting tenure or a promotion"


A male has the same worries, and may even more.  So this is not an example of woman oppressed by capitalism. 


More examples are in the article but it does no good to point them out, some people will always see themselves as a victim, and they will only be able to rise to the level of being a victim and go no further.  Usually people fail to achieve what they want more because of who they are and how they think not because of whats between their legs.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 1:09PM #3
Ironhold
Posts: 11,587

Even "The Economist" is having to admit that efforts to make women "equal" in some fields are backfiring spectacularly.


If people feel that women aren't being treated as "equals" because there are so few of them in certain professions, why aren't they working to ensure that women are receiving the needed job training and being nudged towards careers in these fields?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 1:20PM #4
REteach
Posts: 15,016

I recently read an article noting that childbearing might be taking otherwise capable women out of certain fields, such as math and physics.  Improving national child care might help a lot of women--and men.

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 1:28PM #5
Cesmom
Posts: 5,327

"“Innate differences” are used to explain why so few women are welders, atomic physicists or firefighters. Supposedly women are not as “well-equipped” to complete these tasks. Since they are not able to do the job well, the story goes, many women do not apply for these jobs."


If a woman is willing to work twice as hard to do a physical job, then more power to her.  I think she should be paid accordingly.  However, we shouldn't be lowering the physical requirements of a job such as a firefighter just so that a woman can be qualified.  Welding is a very unpleasant job, so I don't know why anyone would be complaining about being under-represented in that line of work.  Women have been under-represented in science related careers, but I believe that area is seeing a positive trend.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 2:55PM #6
Jasr
Posts: 12,084

Jun 4, 2012 -- 1:28PM, Cesmom wrote:


"“Innate differences” are used to explain why so few women are welders, atomic physicists or firefighters. Supposedly women are not as “well-equipped” to complete these tasks. Since they are not able to do the job well, the story goes, many women do not apply for these jobs."


If a woman is willing to work twice as hard to do a physical job, then more power to her.  I think she should be paid accordingly.  However, we shouldn't be lowering the physical requirements of a job such as a firefighter just so that a woman can be qualified.




But we should be changing the physical requirements of the job if they are arbitrary or pointless, and especially if those requirements were written to make it more difficult for a woman to qualify.


NNSECU is right...there should not be different requirements for women as for men. But the requirements should be reasonable for both.


Jun 4, 2012 -- 1:28PM, Cesmom wrote:


  Welding is a very unpleasant job, so I don't know why anyone would be complaining about being under-represented in that line of work. 




Welding pays well because it is an unpleasant job. If you are willing to do it and can do it well and there is discrimination because of your sex then you certainly do have the right to complain.


Jun 4, 2012 -- 1:28PM, Cesmom wrote:


 Women have been under-represented in science related careers, but I believe that area is seeing a positive trend.




I believe it is.


The place to address this is in high schools, where scientifically gifted girls should receive the same encouragement as gifted boys.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 3:17PM #7
Erey
Posts: 19,168

comparring communism with capitalism I will have to say capitalism has been way, way more sucessfull in promoting women than communism ever was. 



Now, more women are graduating college than men.  And in several desirable fields women are even out earining men.    Frankly, I am way more concerned about encouraging young males than females at this point.  And yes, I am female.  I see capitalism as leaving BOYS not girls behind. It is more the boys that are being lost and not having the skills to compete in the marketplace.


For a woman to be sucessfull as a welder or in any of the hard labor fields she is going to have to develop more physical strength and stamina than what most women possess.  Some women do have this naturally.  However most women don't bother developing that and instead turn their career goals to professions that don't require so much physical strength and stamina.  As well as welding pays most women would prefer to get a bit more education and work in an office.   Natually I would never choose welding or brick laying over office work.  However the women that do should of course have the opportunity to prove themselves competent and capable in that field and should be compensated according to their ability and performance.  Not compensated just because they have 2 X chromosomes.  



As far as childbirth equality, is it fair that a woman's career be artificialy inflated by laws to accomodate for the 6 years she took off to be with her children?  I don't think it is. What does that kind of unfairness say to men or say to women who don't have children?   They are going to feel like this is very unfair that they are kept at the same level as women who took time off to bear and raise children.  I personally won't support such initiatives as I find them abhorrent.   Having children is a choice, right?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 3:50PM #8
Cesmom
Posts: 5,327

Jun 4, 2012 -- 3:17PM, Erey wrote:


As far as childbirth equality, is it fair that a woman's career be artificialy inflated by laws to accomodate for the 6 years she took off to be with her children?  I don't think it is. What does that kind of unfairness say to men or say to women who don't have children?   They are going to feel like this is very unfair that they are kept at the same level as women who took time off to bear and raise children.  I personally won't support such initiatives as I find them abhorrent.   Having children is a choice, right?




I agree with this up to a point.  I think if a woman chooses to take off a considerable amount of time with her children, then she should expect that it will affect her career aspirations.  However, I think the whole point behind FMLA (which I think was a wonderful move for families) was so that people (both men and women) would be able to make sure their families are taken care of without having to worry about repurcussions in the workplace.  I think employers should be allowing some leeway there.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 5:05PM #9
Erey
Posts: 19,168

Well Cesmom, like all special interests they will if given the opportunity take it too far.


Do I think a woman should be fired because she take 6 weeks - two months for having a baby?  No, of course not.  But do I think like many people do that a  woman is OWED, Entitled to a year off at employer expense?  I don't. There are euro countries where the woman gets a good year off for maternity - great right?  How biased are the average employers  in those countries  against young child bearing aged women?  For good reason, right? 



I think women have fabulous opportunities today to ballance family and work, like never before.  But at some point it is the law of natural consequences that you are going to get out of your career what you put into it, right?  If you take alot of time off for family reasons you are not putting into your career what your co-workers who don't have families put - and that will have a reflection.  Is this unfair?    At some point the "fairness" for mothers becomes unfairness for those who don't mother. 


You should be able to have a baby or get surgery or deal with a health crisis ON OCCASION - right?  I think employers support this.  I have a good friend who is not a mother but worked for Halliburton.  They kept her on for 3 years.  Within a 3 year time frame she had so much health and medical issues she worked the equivalent of one year.  Eventually they let her go but she is on long term disability and makes 60K a year for an indefinate amount of time, perhaps forever.



Some people live for their careers, they are not really excited by the idea of having children they should have the opportunity to get out of it what they put into it and not held back because others in their field want to have children.


For the record, about 25% of women in the US today never mother, not biological or adopted children.  That is not a small percentage.  They should be given the opportunities to take advantage of their ability to be more devoted to their careers. 



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 04, 2012 - 5:24PM #10
drawout
Posts: 5,910

Hmmm,couldnt help but notice this old fashioned notion that college is a recipe for success. Skilled trades are the future for those who want to live well.


www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/20...

'When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.' - Mark Twain
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook