Where did all the Feminists go?

(699 Posts)
Portofino Sat 22-Sep-12 19:43:34

MN seems to have had a reorganisation of FWR when I was on holiday and me no-likey. Why do we now have a Rad fem section and Feminist light chat. So many of the dynamic, knowledgable and interesting posters have disappeared. I have to say that some of the more radical stuff posted really made me think about my views and re-align them. There doesn't seem to be much of that anymore. I am disappointed to be honest.

Hullygully Tue 25-Sep-12 11:14:17

could well have been vesela, yes!

Ah well, I said it was just a pub blather and holes could be picked smile

Mixed housing though? Local community involvement? Couldn't these do some good? And yes, Hully, I was thinking of Caitlin Moran's hub idea as well.

I'm not arguing for these instead of taxation or state control of markets. I am in no way a free market liberal, I just think one ingredient in our tolerance of greed is that it's too easy for the rich to ignore poverty.

I'm not arguing for feudalism for heaven's sake! I rather hoped we'd grown past that sort of thing. Unlike in feudal days, nobody except Xenia maybe now believes people are born to the station in life that they deserve. I do think shame could have a role here if we could only learn to shame people for the right things - for example the hypocrisy of greedy fat cats who pay lip service to the notion that human beings are fundamentally equal while amassing vast quantities of wealth at the expense of poor people. These people have not historically been shamed, they have been lauded as successes. It's time that stopped, IMO.

madwomanintheattic Wed 26-Sep-12 14:44:47

There are loads of avant garde lesbian sculptors here, vezzie. grin you'd fit right in. Tis a bit bigger than a small village though.

Xenia Wed 26-Sep-12 16:23:03

I have never said people belong to a station life whether plebian, prole or whatever. Llke many of us including Ms Middleton's mother I am an example of some social mobility - my great grandfather was a miner.

If money does not make you happy why on earth does it matter if some of us have more than others? I've never understood that. there is an article in today's Times saying hang on there are people who have worked very very hard and earned a lot and are not using tax havens and who are paying a lot of tax - 1% of us pay 25% of the tax paid for a start (men and women).

It's not so much money making you happy or not (although there is evidence that even if the basics are sorted, gross inequality causes unhappiness all on its own), it's that a severe lack of money can make you bloody miserable.

Have you ever had to choose between heating your home and having enough to eat? That's the reality for a lot of people in this country today.

Pleased to hear you believe in social mobility though. There is evidence that there is more social mobility in more equal societies. As our society becomes more unequal, social mobility is decreasing.

amillionyears Wed 26-Sep-12 17:45:07

Some people have obtained lots of money through fraud.That matters.

Xenia Fri 28-Sep-12 11:12:40

I am not aganist social mobility but remember if X goes up Y must go down, we cannot all be above everyone else unless we are in an Animal Farm situatino and even then they were saying all animals were equal but added the caveat but some are more equal than others.

I don't think there is a moral good in seeking to ensure everyone has the same income and if a society where some earn a lot more than others means some people are less happy then in the interests of personal liberty I would say well that's just tough - go to church, cure yourself of the sin of envy or work as hard as those of us who ear a lot but don't whinge about inequalities.

amillionyears Fri 28-Sep-12 11:17:39

Xenia,does fraud bother you?

Xenia Fri 28-Sep-12 13:10:27

Yes, most fraud is by the poor of course, benefits cheating, disability claims when they should not be made etc.
It should be rooted out wherever it occurs. Thankfully we live in a country with much much less in the financial sector than many others and many fewer bribes. We are lucky in that respect.

MooncupGoddess Fri 28-Sep-12 13:26:47

Erm, can you offer any evidence to support that claim (that most fraud is by the poor), Xenia?

amillionyears Fri 28-Sep-12 14:01:03

For sheer quantity of money defrauded,I would have thought that the rich would win by a country mile.

MiniTheMinx Fri 28-Sep-12 18:07:41

Some tax avoidance is fraud, some tax avoidance is legal but possibly immoral. For seeking to earn, acquire and hide money I would have said the rich were up to their necks. The fact that our judiciary and our politicians and civil service is an elite bunch of fuck wits intent on consolidating class power and wealth, expect that to remain the case.

Xenia Fri 28-Sep-12 21:25:30

Very few people are rich. Absolutely loads are poor. It is a bit like taxing the rich - it makes the jealous poor who are riven with the sin of envy happier but it does not raise much as very very few people earn much which is why we have to tax the squeezed middle.

Very few people are rich and of those very few plenty are simply in PAYE jobs or would not choose to engage in lawful but cutting edge tax avoidance. A tiny tiny number engage in evasion.
We have the best legal system on the planet and most countries are very jealous of that. It is a shame if people don't believe that but it is so. Look at justice in China or Russia?

Also there is nothing wrong with people acting in their best interests - it is why we emerged triumphant over other species. The fittest survive. It's a moral and social good. We congratulate winners even at the Olympics.

amillionyears Fri 28-Sep-12 21:38:56

Some corporations and businesses are very rich.And they are run by normally wealthy people.
And some transactions that go on,are not legal,and are fraudulent.And much money is lost to this country in this way.

If people act in their own best interests fraudulently,then yes,that is wrong behaviour.

getmorenappies Fri 28-Sep-12 22:42:31

Also there is nothing wrong with people acting in their best interests - it is why we emerged triumphant over other species. The fittest survive. It's a moral and social good. We congratulate winners even at the Olympics.

we survived and became successful because we worked together. Hunted together, farmed together.

Olympians have teams of people behind them. Teamwork .

People, at least I, resent some of wealth because they gain it by crapping on everyone below them.

The average company director awarded themselves a 22% pay rise last year. The cabinet is full of millionair trust fund kids who've never done a real job in their lives. And asking the rest of us to tighten our belts. Cheeky fuckers. And then one of them dares call the police 'plebs'

Bob Diamond presides over multiple mistermeaners like Libor and gets payed millions. Barklays and others rip everyone off with fraudulant insurance scams and nobody ends up in the clinker.

That's why people get fucked off with the wealthy, because it seems to be at their expence. And I say that as one of the top 5% earners in the country.

Xenia Sat 29-Sep-12 12:34:15

If money does not make people happier why should it matter if some people have more than others? I am always being told here that you can be happy as a housewife or unemployed or loo cleaner. If that is so why does it matter that the surgeon in charge of your hospital or the prime minister or anyone else earns more? Does all this jealousy really make the poor so happy? Why can't they just change their thoughts and relax and think good for XYZ. I might do that or I might not be interested in earning that but I have removed the sin of jealousy from my being and am free....

SuperB0F Sat 29-Sep-12 12:39:26

And yet you are still bored enough to come here to needle the lower orders for your own amusement. Go figure.

amillionyears Sat 29-Sep-12 12:46:41

Xenia,the people who are not jealous,
Care when wealth has been accumulated through fraud -do you understand that bit,else I will explain again later more about that.
They also care,when like getmorenappies says,company directors are greedy,because this affects other people,do you understand that?

Everyone needs a certain amount of money to be content,do you understand that bit?

Any person that is jealous of anothers greater wealth,well I cant do much about that.That is not me by the way,but I acknowledge that there are people of actually all wealth levels that are jealous of others with more.
In fact,I read that those on the worlds richest list,are jealous of those who are higher up the wealth list!

Am more than happy to explain any of this in greater detail,if there is any of this post that you do not understand.

inde Sat 29-Sep-12 12:52:59

Why can't they just change their thoughts and relax and think good for XYZ. I might do that or I might not be interested in earning that but I have removed the sin of jealousy from my being and am free....

Many people do think that way. Not everybody is obsessed by money. It's also possible to believe that people should pay an amount towards this countries services and infrastructure based on what they can afford without being jealous of wealthy people.

Xenia Sat 29-Sep-12 14:29:53

Most wealthy people pay a lot towards the state. 1% of us pay 25% of all tax etc. Obviously a few break the law but many many fewer than the poor breaking the law (simply because there are many more poor than rich).

summerflower Sat 29-Sep-12 15:28:43

>>If money does not make people happier why should it matter if some people have more than others? <<

I think the point is that "once you have enough money to live comfortably*, money does not make people happier. Which is a different statement to money does not make people happier.

Whatever people may say on here, there is a wealth of sociological research to show that poverty is detrimental to health and well-being and that inequalities are damaging to social cohesion.

If everyone had enough money to live comfortably, then, no, it wouldn't matter if some people had a bit more. But what matters is that people are working long hours in jobs such as nursing, which we all need, and still not being able to make ends meet, whilst others have so much money playing the markets they don't know what to do with it. It's not jealousy to point out something is wrong there.

That apart, I found the article you posted from Style an interesting take on the last ten years, worth a read. I do tend to think though that history needs a bit more distance.

MiniTheMinx Sat 29-Sep-12 16:21:32

"I am not aganist social mobility but remember if X goes up Y must go down"

and there was me thinking that because the poor had central heating that capitalism could raise the living standards of all Xenia. You see, capitalism is full of contradictions and you are right if X rises Y falls so why is it that under advanced capitalism we are sold the lie that living standards are rising for all and that ONLY under such a system can all human needs be met. It's a lie and you know it, the fact that you profit from it shouldn't blind you to that reality, instead as an educated person you should find it easier to be objective. I profit from it, I do not sell my labour to anyone and have everything to gain from it but that doesn't make it OK.

Two thirds of the worlds poor are women and two thirds of the worlds workforce is female. WE women are slaves to a system that extracts profit from both our paid and unpaid labour, that leaves us poor and picks our pockets to line those of the capitalist class.

"Very few people are rich. Absolutely loads are poor."

Yes, right again xenia, and the income inequality is increasing between the two. We are already living in a world where the poor can not consume enough to stimulate demand and keep their own class in work. The capitalist class keep their workers in penury so they are unable to consume the products of their own labour, which means that now the only sources of capitalist accumulation involve further privatisation of health, welfare and education ,water etc..... because capitalism creates a need for welfare. The other reason is this, where profits have been maximised by globalisation, deregulating labour, driving down wages and increased financification of money has meant that less money is invested in actual job creation.

To give you some idea of the scale of class and wealth consolidation since 2009 there is now an even greater surplus absorption problem than before 2009, effectively meaning, the rich have money, they have NOTHING to invest it in! strange but true! so why not just cough up your taxes and stop moaning or better still invest in job creation, pay fair wages and stop paying execs up to 200 times that which you pay your ordinary work force.

Absorbing capital surpluses has got more and more problematic over time. By 1950, it’s $4 trillion. By 2000, it’s $40 trillion. It’s now around $50 trillion. Yep all that money made off the back of a mainly female workforce kept in poverty.

Inequality is actually one of the major problems in the causation of the last Crisis. The sub prime market came about BECAUSE of inequality. Of those made homeless the highest percentage was black & immigrant female workers.

The biggest lie is trickle down economics, if the rich get richer the poor do indeed get poorer and I believe you know that Xenia, If x rises, Y must fall...........

There is however an upper limit to capital accumulation, a tipping point, the tipping point is caused by, guess what? inequality. Funny that Xenia.

Xenia Sat 29-Sep-12 17:37:34

People are hammering against an empty door. There are not that many rich people around. Of course it makes many people hpapier to have a bogey man in all generations which currently is bankers and a few rich people but there are not really that many rich people around.

The subprime crisis was caused by market intervention - interests rates were not alllowed to rise to their natural level from 2001. They were kept down by interfering Governments. If we had free markets things would not have been so bad but no one is brave enough to try.

My words being twisted. i was talking about people rising to a different class - if Miss Jones does well and becomes middle class mr Smith might well lose his money and become working class in 2 generations. Social mobility means up and down. the FT has an article about ancient Rome today and who were the plebians. There were quite rigid social strata but then those got broken down and restrictions on marriages between the classes were allowed.

On the issue of trickle down if the rich are prevented or deterred from earning much the poor suffer. There is a good letter in today's FT about wealth taxes which says when it was looked at a good few decades ago it was found that either you tax people's worldwide assets in which case they simply avoid the UK or you tax their UK assets in which case they make sure their assets are not in the UK. When the rich feel taxes are fair they work hard and the poor benefit.

I have still not had an answer as to why inequality is bad. if it is wrong to be jealous of the rich or want to gouge the eyes out of the pretty girl next door as she's prettier than you are or whatever the jealousy might be then why does it matter if some people have more than others?

One lday writing in today's Telegraph had 2000 applicants for her 2 afternoons a week live in au pair job, 70% from Iberia where jobs are scarce. People move countries when things get bad and that can be quite a good thing.

Yes, the Style article was interesting. I hope most people aren't as superficial as it suggested.

On the question of where to invest Rees Mogg in yesterday's Times suggested gold is real and remains more stable and that for 40 years we have in effect used the US dollar as the world stability as it were but even that is now being lost. In terms of do people have problems in what to invest, those with spare money, a lot will invest in VC, businesses etc. and take risk with some of their money. Others invest in property. It certainly is never easy to know what will be the best investment.

The TV series on Keynes, Hayek and Marx is worth watching.

amillionyears Sat 29-Sep-12 18:51:04

I personally dont think equality is bad,so long as the rich have not taken the poor's money,through whatever means they may take it.And that includes what businesses get up to that they shouldnt.
To me,it depends how the rich have become rich.If it is through sheer hard work,then that is up to the individual.
But if it as getmorenappies describes then that is very wrong behaviour.
Xenia,do you think it is wrong behaviour too?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now