Poverty is a Women's Issue?
I was impressed with some of the commentary to my admittedly button-pushing, provocative post yesterday. However, since it went unanswered, I would love to hear your thoughts on the following comment I left yesterday for Berlyn, a very agressive "vagina warrior", who alleges there is currently a "war on women" being conducted by some unspecified force in some unmentioned country:
You said "poverty is a women's issue". That is complete propagandist bullshit. That is the logical equivalent to saying if all adult men are sexist pigs that's women's fault because they are the mothers that raised those boys.
Well, what do you think? Do women own the poverty issue? What about kids? What about other poor people who happen to be men?
Feminists should be held accountable, just like any Tory, Dipper, Liberal or Libertarian who spews blathering ideologically-driven propaganda. I'm not trying to be facetious here. I really don't understand what Berlyn meant.
You said "poverty is a women's issue". That is complete propagandist bullshit. That is the logical equivalent to saying if all adult men are sexist pigs that's women's fault because they are the mothers that raised those boys.
Well, what do you think? Do women own the poverty issue? What about kids? What about other poor people who happen to be men?
Feminists should be held accountable, just like any Tory, Dipper, Liberal or Libertarian who spews blathering ideologically-driven propaganda. I'm not trying to be facetious here. I really don't understand what Berlyn meant.
Labels: Bloggers, Girls, Reactionary Bullshit
posted by K-Dough at 12:27 PM
52 Comments:
there is a war against women being waged in our country:
its waged by the feminists who turned a noble cause into a trail mix of lilly-livered academic bullshit.
sorry if I'm cranky, but I'm hungry and the placenta I brought for lunch smells off.
CC: did you say something? sorry, I was too busy looking at your tits.
No, but seriously...
Lai- Well, aren't you just the funny little Millwickian custard bun.
Being a capitalist, typically I would want to own everything... but if feminists really want to own the poverty issue, they can have it...
So here's the deal, you feminists can keep Dworkin, and I get the Chrysler building. Sound fair?
That is the logical equivalent to saying if all adult men are sexist pigs that's women's fault because they are the mothers that raised those boys.
You score D- in Logical Equivalency.
Well, what do you think? Do women own the poverty issue? What about kids? What about other poor people who happen to be men?
Nobody said anything about anyone "owning" an issue. But fuck it, I'll bite.
Yes, women "own" poverty as an issue.
You know, I'm tempted to leave it at that without further qualification or explanation, just to wind folks up. Know why? Cause yesterday you said you were up for serious discussion when the occasion arose. I think this is the occasion and you're not delivering.
Berlynn gave you a serious argument, rationally posed and backed by evidence. How about a real argument? There's a good chap.
So it's true, Chucker does have nice tits... see Chucker. Why travel everywhere earning money, when you can sit at home marketing your own "man-bra".
Make sure it's comfortable though. Lots of padding, no wires, and maybe a beer holder for sporting events... not like the ones designed for women.
If I was a woman, from the way my wife describes a bra, I'd get breast implants just so I wouldn't have to wear one.
I'm with you Lai- in terms of methodology, the feminist lens is a clouded way to view social phenomenon, let alone economy, history, labour etc... But no more clouded than say geographic determinism or literary criticism or ANY academic school of thought that attempts to quantify non-quantifiable data.
Any time we try to impose some metamethodological template of interpretation onto the treatment of women, minorities, impoverished or abused peoples we are selectively prescribing the data we wish to mine. I.e., we see what we want to see and manipulate facts to present opinion as truth.
It is only by recognizing that we are all hampered by prejudices, biases and developmental contexts that we can get closer to that truth- or whatever version we decide is closest to truth.
What I am trying to say with all this long-winded bullshit is that some people should really lighten the fuck up with generalizations; i.e. tagging, characterizing and stereotyping an entire half of the human race or claiming an entire social ill is within the domain of one gender.
We are all interconnected despite the categories that divide us.
RP - Ok, so what do you want to argue about? This is not a argument: Yes, women "own" poverty as an issue. It is a premise.
I seriously am interested in your opinion. Pls take into context my last comment above though, because indeed, I am discussing Berlyn's statement(s) right now.
Sheena, if you ain't bleeding, you ain't paying your taxes...
Believe me sister, I need a tampon the size of a football field.
Sheena- having to pay for a PSA test (for prostate cancer)in Ontario. I so fucking own that one.
But tampons are more regular I guess. Ok maybe regular was a bad word; how about "numerous".
Very good perspective KD... the singular binding factor of all humanity is that they are all equally human, and equally fucked up...
It is a narrow person who forgets we all put our pants on one leg at a time.
Poverty is not an issue, it is a state of being. Sometimes a person is broke, sometimes their not. One person is seen as poor by another, while yet another see's the same person as rich beyond imagination.
Poor is relative to defination, circumstance is a environmental condition... damn, this is good coffee.
RP and others: and pls don't take our tongue in cheek, filthy mouthed one liners as disrespectful to the topic at hand. Thisi s how we talk when we are not trying to be smart on this blog...
Comedy and laughter are more important to me than fruitless causes.
Thank god for stupidity... I wouldn't want to be stunned into boredom too quickly. Without our foiables what do we have left... Billy Graham on meds, drooling on his bib.
I grew up going to Catholic School, and my fondest memories are of assembly and getting shit on by the nuns for not praying for world peace.
"Don't you want God to give us world peace, and end war and suffering?" They ask me. I would reply, "Of course I would, but then we wouldn't be human anymore".
Bought me a three day holiday every time:)
I have neither the time nor the energy to educate fuckwads like you KayDee, but here's a link to a google search. We can discuss it after you've done your homework, babycakes.
I cannot believe the number of lazy assed thinkers populating PB!
I can't believe the number people who assume they know better than others.
KD is all-knowing, all-seeing, and really perverted.
And he really is an educated fuckwad. And he's kinda cute.
Wow what a bunch of shallow thinkers. Not smart, not witty, not bright enough to achieve satire, not worth wasting energy on.
Whooee! Jest wond'rin'... is callin' sumbuddy "fuckwad" or "babycakes" s'posed t' win anybuddy over?
Poverty is a human issue. There are poor men and women and boys and girls.
First Nations men and women is disproportionately poor. Is poverty a First Nations issue? Yes, but First Nations don't own the issue. They aren't the only poor people in Canada.
Alleviating poverty across the board will assist all of those sufferin', includin' women.
Abortion is a women's issue. Breast cancer is a womens issue. The tax on tampons is a women's issue. Childcare and spousal support are (largely) women's issues.
Poverty is a societal issue. It cuts across gender, race, religion, age.
JimBobby
Berlyn:
I really hope you meant "fuckwad" in a loving sort of way. If so I forgive and respect you. Please clarify.
So, you don't have the time or energy to debate and educate, but you have all the time in the world to drop inflammatory word bombs?
That only suggests to me that you are incapable of defending your discriminatory remarks. You sound like the female version of Cherniak or vice versa. Funny how we imitate what we profess to despise.
By the way, for the record, I could have called you a steel-toed, thick-ankled ditch licker, but I didn't.
Poverty is a societal issue. It cuts across gender, race, religion, age.
True, except people of marginalized gender, races, religions, and ages are overrepresented amongst the poor. more on women and poverty. One point to take particular note of: "... women's poverty is difficult to measure, because if they reside in a family that is above the poverty line, they are considered non-poor, despite the fact that women often have unequal access to resources within marriage."
I wouldn't say women are the sole owners of it, but yes, poverty is indeed a feminist issue, just as it is (or should be) an issue for all equal rights movements.
Although I admit I'm guilty of finding all the recent name-calling kind of amusing, it isn't particularly useful. However, I'm sure you menfolk can understand how it angers us womenfolk to be constantly invalidated in our own experiences as women. For example: have you ever been a homeless woman? Are you aware of the particular challenges homeless women face? If not don't try to tell someone who has what it is like.
Red Jenny- First off, I truly appreciate your effort to communicate without trashing me or my readers. That said, my regular readers are women as well as men.
You said "poverty is indeed a feminist issue". Exactly. It's an issue for your "constituency" if you will. But it's not some exclusive injustice perpetrated on only women. That's what Berlyn could have said if she really understood the question. I'm not sure she did.
Your last point puzzled me a bit: Are you saying a homeless man has it better than a homeless woman?
If so I have to ask: How do we measure degrees of desolation, hunger and loneliness?
"... women's poverty is difficult to measure, because if they reside in a family that is above the poverty line, they are considered non-poor, despite the fact that women often have unequal access to resources within marriage."
is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Grasping and pathetic.
Sure of their qualities and demanding praise, more go to ruined fortunes than are raised.
-- Alexander Pope
Besides, taking ownership of poverty is like stating ducks have ownership of water because they float around shitting in it.
It's stupid to equate any one group with poverty, as it afflicts all aspects of life.
If an old man picks up a butt off the street because he can't afford tobacco, is he any better off than the crackwhore offering herself up for the next fix? Maybe, but who cares? Their both fucked up, just in different ways.
To presume poverty is the exclusive jurisdiction of one group over another shows catagorically just how narrow of mind a person like Berlyn, or Holly (shut up and stick out your tits) really are.
All people have a responsibility to relieve suffering in all forms to the extent that they have the capacity to offer relief in general.
Just as all people have a responsibility to provide for themselves first, so as to not sacrifice their ability to help others.
"When Diogenes came to Olympia and perceived some Rhodian youths dressed with great splendor and magnificence, he said with a smile of contempt, "This is all arrogance." Afterwards some Lacedemonians came in his way, as mean and as sordid in their attire as the dress of the others was rich. "This," said he, "is also arrogance."
CC: There definitely is a measure of personal agency/accountability missing from the argument.
But I understand the more humanistic point she is making re: it's hard to measure things that can't be quantified. That said, why cite statistics at all?
I find that people who pontificate on poverty, generally have no clue as to what it really looks and feels like.
Picking up a welfare cheque, sleeping in the drop-in shelter, and cashing the baby bonus is a luxury 3 billion people in this world don't have.f
I have to say something to the hostile women berating me over on bread 'n roses:
First of all, I'm 38 years old. I am a sensitive, loving father who shoulders 50% of the child rearing and domestic responsibilties in a successful relationship with a powerful woman who makes more money than I do. I openly talk about my feelings, fears, joys and shortcomings. Above all, I treat women with as much respect as I'd treat a man.
I will never teach my daughter to do anything but celebrate the unique differences between the genders, while at the same time celebrating the sameness of being human. That cuts across religious, socio-economic and racial strata.
Secondly, I think you are arrogant supposing to speak for other women they way you do. I am surrounded by successful, confident, intelligent, independent, sensitive women in my personal and working life. They do not believe what you believe.
I think y'all need to sit down over a beer and talk this shit out with some people with different perspectives. Or move away from whatever backwoods, patriarchal society you live in.
Hollykins- What hospitality do you expect? You are a troll leaving a comment on a blog. A comment that had absolutely no fucking substance to it, except to dismiss everything here as being not bright enough.
Need I remind you of your awesome powers of argument: "Wow what a bunch of shallow thinkers. Not smart, not witty, not bright enough to achieve satire, not worth wasting energy on."
What are you, 10 years old?
You've added nothing to the dialogue whatsoever.
You focus on the tits comment and I'll focus on the substance.
April: My daughter will be a strong woman because she is being raised by strong, open-minded parents. She won't be afraid to leave the house, I'll tell ya that.
If more time was spent on preaching good parenting - dealing with sexism at the source- rather than punching at the fucking shadows, we'd never have to worry about the sexist pig agenda because it wouldn't exist.
Life isn't fair. People can be monsters. That's reality. It is how you deal with it in your own backyard that counts.
And by the way. Here's a news flash: Guys want to see tits. Especially teenagers. When the fuck did that become a crime?
Whether my daughter shows them her tits will ultimately be up to her, because she will be a human capable of accepting responsibility for her actions.
Hollycakes: Yeah, I'm too stupid and lazy. I wrote this earlier and not one feminist has attempted to address it. Why don't you give it a shot:
In terms of methodology, the feminist lens is a clouded way to view social phenomenon, let alone economy, history, labour etc... But no more clouded than say geographic determinism or literary criticism or ANY academic school of thought that attempts to quantify non-quantifiable data.
Any time we try to impose some metamethodological template of interpretation onto the treatment of women, minorities, impoverished or abused peoples we are selectively prescribing the data we wish to mine. I.e., we see what we want to see and manipulate facts to present opinion as truth.
It is only by recognizing that we are all hampered by prejudices, biases and developmental contexts that we can get closer to that truth- or whatever version we decide is closest to truth.
Polly- The non-quantifiable comment I made above wasn't challenging poverty stats- I was referring to broader issues of women's studies focus,i.e. societal attitudes towards women, unreported abuse, hiring practices, wage parity etc.
CC, why is the statement grasping and pathetic? If you've never lived it, you might have trouble understanding that it is true for many women. In Canada, thankfully women have legal rights so this is a lot better, and many women work, but in many families women are under the economic domination of the men they live with. Families are more equal now than 50 years ago; many women are marginalized within their own families. Both statements are true.
K-D. You asked: Are you saying a homeless man has it better than a homeless woman?
It isn't about who has it worse. No one is trying to out-victim each other. But when you are looking at how to help and alleviate problems within society you have to recognize how those problems affect different groups differently.
As to homeless women vs men - both have it bad (although women have some different experiences in terms of sexual violence, for example). You can't measure these things. My point was that a lot goes on that you don't know about when you aren't in that particular group, so you can't really speak authoritatively FOR them.
Here's a question: would you tell a black or aboriginal person that poverty isn't a race issue?
I find this a fascinating discussion. However, I'm afraid I may be too serious. Should I be slinging some mud too?
Poverty is only a women issue? If it where in the hands of some people everything would be women issue.
What is wrong with people? Instead of sharing ideas people are playing games with important issues so they can see who scores more points in what area.
Poverty sees no gender, when it comes it won't wait to see if you are a male or female and if you are a female you get attacked by poverty but if you are a male it passes you. Males and females are both affected by poverty and children more than the grown ups so may be instead of pointing fingers and calling K-Dough whatever comes in your way and may be instead of arguing you can go and make a real difference and donate so people don't die in poverty.
Who'd of thunk K-Dough would be public enemy #1 to sooooo many women?
I know K-Dough, and I can vouch for him. He is a friend to all. Women. Kids. Sick and lonely people. I've even seen him provide good lovin to a squirrel.
He hates cats, though. Oh man! Does he ever hate cats.
I feel that I have to stick up for K-Dough because he's always been a strong advocate of us Visigoths, who, though we may not own poverty, definitly own misery.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have more suicide to contemplate. I'm on a strict schedule.
H-
And talk is cheap but doing something to stop poverty is going to make a difference.
Red Jenny: I would never tell anyone affected by poverty that it isn't their issue. I grew up in a single parent, very low-income home. I just have a difficult time with those who would divide people who are afflicted by the worst life has to offer based on demographics, race, gender etc for political purposes and I think some community groups, politicians (and even feminists) do that. It sickens me.
That said I entirely agree with your point about the need to tailor social programs to those using them. Idealistically, it's a great idea. In a big city like the one we live in there is more money and will to cater to different ethnic groups and women.
Unfortunately, back when I helped run a safe shelter for street kids in the early 90s there were no resources to allow for such a tailored program. We ran the shelter on a shoe string under constant funding pressure.
For what little it's worth, way, way down here, K Dough is, despite his occasional punchinellian impulses, attempting to engage and involve people who, for political reasons, probably never read each other's blogs.
That the majority of minimum age earners are women doesn't entail that arguments against increasing the miniumum wage are opposed to the interests of women.
This, of course, doesn't preclude anyone from arguing that keeping the miniumum wage low hurts women more than it hurts men, because it must, because they make up the majority of minium wage earners.
Rather, it should be noted that Jason Cherniak's original argument against raising the minimum wage doesn't show much concern for anyone at all.
His insensitivity to the plight of the working poor is universal. As many people do, be they poor or rich, he focuses on the health and well-being of the economy, that abstract object none of us must harm, for fear that it may harm us.
What is interesting about making this link between raising the minimum wage and his genuine concern for the health of the economy is that citing economists on the matter is of little consequence, because on balance, economists are generally wrong about most things when it comes to making predications to the economy.
This isn't to crap on economists, but a reflection of the sheer complexity of the economy, and our culture's capacity to focus on the asbtract object in our newspapers instead of the vast hidden sea of humanity who suffer for a better life.
Indeed, this comment is a good representative of that.
ALT: Are you a hater of economists?
Are you an economistist?
But seriously, you raise a good point. Talking about minimum wage solely in relation to economy is political jargon designed to argue a political point. Much like talking about minimum wage solely in relation to the plight of women would be political jargon designed to argue a political point.
Thanks for recognizing that I am indeed ALTRUISTICALLY interested in pulling together diverse modes of thought here.
We do not always conduct serious discussions on this blog. We won't always in the future. But we do for the most part shelve our partisan and philosophical differences in the interest of getting along.
We are a microcosm of world peace. Hug me you sexy bastards!!!!!
Red Jenny:
Sorry, I wasn't meaning that to sound personal in any way! lol!
Seriously, I couldn't name a married couple that remotely resembles that. I agree they exist, but I don't agree that they represent a large part of married couples that it would grant "ownership" of poverty issues.
I earn the money in my family and spend more of the cash than my wife. Does that mean sliced in a statscan study, my wife lives in a poverty situation oppressed by me?
I spend more because I pay the bills. The food and booze money is hers. So who's poor here? I'm rich and oppressive because take care of Hydro and the mortgage?
CC: I hafta say I don't buy that economic slavery crap either. It's directed at the wives of men who come from ethnicities that encourage women to remain in the home and not work.
I'm sorry but that just sounds like serious codependency to me. And I don't mean the wives, I mean the feminists.
Adults are adults regardless of gender. They are responsible for their own decisions in life.
Abuse is a totally different matter.
Neither do I. Adults ARE adults, and have some responsibility for their decisions, both professionally and privately. As for the economic slavery, I do not know any couple that falls into that category either, but I'm sure there are many. Again, is there not some CHOICE to remain in those relationships? And is that really relevant to this topic?
And abuse, of course, is another matter altogether.
Pam- check this out:
http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19341&start=0
Well, it's been a while since I've been at a FRAT PARTY. Who invited the man-haters? Bet it was CC.
Between us(and all the guys in the togas), you can have breasts and a sense of humour, THANK GOD.
Boy, I missed a party here. A scary, scary party. My current wife out-earns me, as did my previous wife. My mom always told me if I had a great ass, I'd be looked after by powerful women. It rocks.
LMAO, Leather. Where the hell were you? Damn.
My husband out-earns me and it makes me want to cry. He pays more taxes than I earn. How sad is that? BUT, I did take a huge pay-cut for a more "family friendly" job. Andit was worth it, to me.
Note: I still have a great ass. Leather, you might be on to something here.
You all out-earn me but I guess my time will come too;)
I believe it is all about choices. Even poverty depends on the choices you have made in your life. If someone decided to skip school and not graduate and now earns minimum wage, it was his/her choice to skip school. If some doctor immigrated to Canada leaving behind his job and now he is a taxi driver, that was his choice too. Now it is in their own hands. The governments can't do everything. There has to be some effort on the personal level too. If a person doesn't have the determination and drive to get out of poverty then no matter what the government does that person will still be in poverty.
A lot of it is about choices Joanne, but not all of it. Things like abuse and mental illness directly contribute to the problem as well.
I like your attitude. Are your parents from Europe?
Let's stick to the central issue. Poverty, like illness, is unequally distributed under capitalism. And more women are poor than men, for a variety of reasons.
Of course poverty is a women's issue. That doesn't mean that it isn't other people's issue, too, but, if women are afflicted by poverty more than men, maybe we should ask why instead of trying to bullshit the question into oblivion.
We know why, that's why.
f'rinstance, there's still a pay equity gap to close. it is closing, but it exists.
another: more old women than old men and fixed incomes bring you closer to poverty.
I'd did not invite the man-haters, Pam. They followed K-Dough home who was doing his provocative rebel shit in the arts library.
I just let them in and tried to get them to drink tequila. But they said tequila was not made to fair-trade standards, so I fished out a bottle of scotch, but they said there's wetlands in Scotland endangered by the global thirst for peatiness. I looked for a bottle of wine, but all I had was from Chile and with Pinochet's recent passing, I didn't dare try to offer it to them.
Things like abuse and mental illness directly contribute to the problem as well.
Yeap, they do but again if a person doesn't do anything about it on the individual level even if that means speaking out then there is not much others can do either.
I like your attitude. Are your parents from Europe?
Nope, Asia.
Joanne- Europe/Asia- similar thing when it comes to family values these days. Anyways, I'm glad I took the time to get to know a little more about you.
But I have to ask: where in Asia?
Anyone listen to Sunday edition on CBC this am? Walter Benn Michaels is an author who has written a book on how (from the CBC website) "identity politics - race and gender particularly - have distracted us from what he sees as the real causes of social inequality in society: class and wealth. Celebrating diversity has become our way of accepting inequality and, he argues, "makes it hard to even see the problem""
An example he gave which adds to the discussion here was of two court cases in the US, both dealing with pay equity. One was a Walmart class action suit where women were being paid around $21K a year while men were paid around $22K. The suit obviously called for the women to be paid the same. However, Michaels point was that the suit completely misses the point which is that neither men nor women can survive in the US on such a low wage and the goal should be to eliminate the inequity. The other suit was from a Wall St. firm where a woman was suing because the men made $1.6 million and she "only" made $1.2. Michaels raises the point that in either case the owners are more than happy to have such gender-based inequities as the focus of the left since it avoids the real issue which is the wealth inequality in North American society. In other words, Walmart is happy to have activists focus on a $1000 difference between men and women rather than the $10000 difference for everyone between actual and livable wages.
As he put it, some radical activists (not naming anyone here...) who completely focus on gender based inequalities are simply missing the big picture and in turn, actually become pawns for those business interests they rally against.
Very interesting point of view.
Post a Comment
<< Home