Sunday, February 19, 2012

How to Crush Women, Part 1

Posit this: a group of elites has managed to construct a society of humans where, instead of humans coming together to protect one another from suffering, humans use social structures to rationalize neglecting one another.  Those individuals who "win," within the rules of the society, have a lot of stuff.  Those who lose can not only have no stuff; they can also have negative stuff, and be indebted to others for years in the future.

E.g., the current world economy.  Zero sum games stacked on top of one another.  Society where, even outside of war, if you run out of food, medical care or shelter, you are badly harmed or die, because everyone else knows that, if they themselves contribute to your well-being, nothing guarantees that they will be so taken care of if they're the one down on their luck that day.

Hoarding (individual "saving") is encouraged, and in fact, becomes a "healthy" behavior.  Individuals accumulate far more than they need, because they know that, if they run out of resources, they're the hobo fighting for a spot on the floor of the YMCA basketball court nearest the bathroom.  There is never too much to own, because you're playing against death.

That works pretty well, in a Machiavellian sense.  People trade currency for resources, and hundreds of years of clusterfuck D&D-style overcomplicated concepts of legal ownership and financial economy keep the game well enough rigged that most people spend their lives striving against their fellow humans to be a little higher on the hill.  They're fighting one another so hard there's often no time--or motivation--to ask the questions, "Why are we on this hill?" or "Is there a better way?"  After all, that would be, depending on the century, "ungodly" or "red" or "unrealistic."

But there's one major problem that keeps popping up to threaten the grift: humans are sexually reproductive beings.  Millions of years of development led to the persistent birthing of humans with different types of genitalia and brain chemistry who seem to naturally want one another's company--and want it a lot, almost as if it's the driving force of their entire existence.

This is bad for the system.  When people want something so badly that they're willing to disregard artificial things like "reputation" and "moral codes" and "law" and "money" to get it, that's a chaotic passion--a beautiful swirl of life resisting antilife that can lead to unintended consequences.  For example: forming meaningful intimate relationships with more than one person; marrying someone in a lower caste, of a different race, from a different country, etc., just because he's so handsome your loins or heart drive you forward; feeling pity for a beautiful, dead child, and asking the forbidden question-- "What if s/he grew up and could have been a friend to me or my child?  Maybe dropping bombs isn't such a good idea.  Maybe it doesn't just hurt 'other people,' but also me and all of us."

And that stuff's bad.  When people look for love, life and meaning outside of things like exclusive marriage, restricted ("straight") sexuality, and the linking and severing of divorce court, it could lead to breaking the system.

Pretend we're the elites--how can we stop that?  Well, the obvious first is to use it.  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  So elites like to throw up a lot of flak between people.  For example, complicated moral, religious or legal codes that try to limit love and sexuality.  This kind of sex is right, this kind is wrong.

By hammering into little kids from birth that they shouldn't be a "slut" (girl) or a "patriarchal asshole" (boy), we instill a fear of their own sexual desires that leads to a lifetime of repression.  Yeah, Catholic priests and the guy in American Beauty have wacky, repressed explosions that result in awful violence.  Most people get that, now--on some level, they understand that repression doesn't work.  The repression they can see.  But like the old driver's manual maxim "the car you don't see is the most dangerous," the repression that most people don't see is the unquestioned assumptions.  For some, it's that "marriage" or "commitment" is good, and "cheating" is bad.  For others, it's "being straight" that's good, and "being gay" that's "unnatural" or wrong on some other level.  "Public health"?  Choose your repression.

We'll stay away from the really deadly elephant right now, but one almost as stridently at issue is the ability of women (generally not people; just women) to buy and sell their company as commodities on the economic market.

Continued in Part 2.

11 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Very true--great article. This series is primarily about how prostitution laws harm women, with Part 1 as an intro.

      Polyamory, because it does not necessarily harm the elites, will fit very comfortably into the grindery, just as Hillary Clinton the womyn or Barack Obama the African-American were able to seamlessly take the reins of the killing machine. In a few decades or generations, perhaps openly polyamorous atheists will be doing the killing.

      Going poly or trans won't solve any problems in and of itself; as soon as those things become acceptable, the token medium for oppression will switch to something else. This series hopes to examine prostitution economics just to help people stuck in a pre-prostitution stage evolve a little. More coming!

      Delete
  2. what's your exact stance on prostitution? I think this interview's really good and puts all the second wave feminist's condescending treatment of sex workers to rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 2 of this series will be going into prostitution in more detail; the economic setup required the intro part.

      Delete
  3. P.S. I still don't agree with you on OWS, I still believe it is a form of direct action, especially in the case of Oakland but I'm willing to engage your argument in this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It certainly is a form of direct action, and it has "potential" and stuff. The OWS article was written just to make a prediction of the future. If it actually makes changes or overthrows society, I owe you a coke. :)

      More importantly, the people participating in it probably genuinely believe they're doing something to effect real change. History books in 30 years (published by the same elite publishing companies) will gravely agree that OWS changed the world, even though the power structures will still be the same. But, "good for" the people trying, in a sense.

      Delete
    2. I would say helping people get their homes back from greedy landlords and the like is a damn good accomplishment, but that's just my opinion. I didn't know that post was basically just predicting the future.. So you don't think armed uprising is the only acceptable form of resistance?

      Delete
    3. "Acceptable" is very much different than "effective." Most (all?) of OWS is certainly "acceptable."

      (Would you please repost the link about getting houses back from "greedy landlords"?)

      Delete
  4. Okay, technically, the bit about getting houses back from landlords was left undetermined here, but I still say it's a good form of direct action in this case. This story has complete ending.
    And by acceptable, I was referring to your own perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool second article; this one would like to see punitive damages and trial by fire, though. :)

      Of course, the landlord's playing the same game; gotta feed the monster.

      Delete