'This Moment is Medieval'...
- from Jackson Katz on misogyny, the manosphere and why men must oppose Trumpism.
Edit to clarify: I used the Katz article only as a starting point, as an example of activism. There are wider issues discussed, related to political opposition and effective messaging at this moment of crisis.
For background: this thread is a follow-up to 'European or Global Crisis?' which included questions about how to fight back against regressive politics. The importance of listening to and acting with and for people. Getting down to grassroots. What is of concern and how to communicate the main message. Using plain language, like Bernie Sanders.
Quoting Amity
The issues of messaging, unchecked MAGA misogyny, and migrants came to the fore.
The growing, global threat of greedy, powerful rich men - fascistic felons, war criminals, dictating and overturning human rights. For what? To increase their global control and their own 'rights' to the Earth and its minerals at the cost of ordinary people.
Quoting Vera Mont
I left that question hanging...
***
However, this morning I read about Jackson Katz and his 40-year struggle to end violence against women. More urgent than ever since Trump became the US President. Katz has written a book about his activism; how he used his 'position of influence as a straight, white man and sportsperson' to speak out. 'Changing the culture from within'.
How effective this will be remains to be seen. Given that the fascist right are looking to impose major, cultural shifts. From an earlier post:
Quoting Amity
So, this is a roll-back, a regression whereby rather than welcome migrants or those with other belief systems, women are to fill the population decline by producing babies, of a certain kind.
The focus turning to Judeo-Christian religion rather than a secular society.
***
Quoting The Guardian - 'This moment is medieval' - Katz
***
Amongst other strategies, Katz employs the 'bystander approach':
Quoting The Guardian
I would like to hear more from the political opposition. I am concerned that there is no clear, messaging from those who should be out there. First of all listening, then being a bold voice for the people most affected by recent momentous, regressive changes.
***
Finally, it fascinated me that Katz made reference to the philosopher, John Stuart Mill:
Quoting The Guardian
The live link in the article takes you to:
The Subjection of Women - John Stuart Mill
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/mill1869.pdf
This is not the original but an adaption by Jonathan Bennett. I haven't read it, as yet. Apparently, there is added material and I am not sure that it accurately reflects Mill's views. There is an editorial explanation about the aids to grasp the structure of a sentence or thought. It highlights main points. From p5/62:
Quoting The Subjection of Women - John Stuart Mill
I'd be interested to hear from others who have views on Mill and his thoughts.
From wiki:
Also, how likely is it that, not only men, but people generally are willing to stand up against the powerful?
How many of us are frustrated in our lack of power, our vulnerability to imposed, dramatic change?
How many will turn to the 'certainties' and 'strength' of a male, dictator?
It's doubtful that reading Mills will help in any way. So, who to turn to for guidance?
Will people be seduced or coerced back to the comforts of the religion of the patriarchy?
Edit to clarify: I used the Katz article only as a starting point, as an example of activism. There are wider issues discussed, related to political opposition and effective messaging at this moment of crisis.
For background: this thread is a follow-up to 'European or Global Crisis?' which included questions about how to fight back against regressive politics. The importance of listening to and acting with and for people. Getting down to grassroots. What is of concern and how to communicate the main message. Using plain language, like Bernie Sanders.
Quoting Amity
He speaks plainly and clearly to camera. He knows how to reach out in a 5 minute YouTube clip. He spells it out. Ending with his hope that, in this critical moment, every American, regardless of political perspective will stand tall and say:
"YES to Democracy. NO to oligarchy, and NO to authoritarianism!"
The issues of messaging, unchecked MAGA misogyny, and migrants came to the fore.
The growing, global threat of greedy, powerful rich men - fascistic felons, war criminals, dictating and overturning human rights. For what? To increase their global control and their own 'rights' to the Earth and its minerals at the cost of ordinary people.
Quoting Vera Mont
The least we can do is be aware and vigilant. To defend and protect the vulnerable against the abusers. To speak out when we can. To be together in humanity. To forget small differences and join forces. Educate, inform and encourage to vote.
Amity
Sounds good. How?
I left that question hanging...
***
However, this morning I read about Jackson Katz and his 40-year struggle to end violence against women. More urgent than ever since Trump became the US President. Katz has written a book about his activism; how he used his 'position of influence as a straight, white man and sportsperson' to speak out. 'Changing the culture from within'.
How effective this will be remains to be seen. Given that the fascist right are looking to impose major, cultural shifts. From an earlier post:
Quoting Amity
Of course family matters enormously, of course we need higher birth rates, Farage told the event, adding that the UK and wider west had kind of forgotten that what underpins everything is our Judeo-Christian culture, and thats where we need to start.
Restoring a sense of optimism that was last afoot in the 1980s and 1990s was essential to reversing decreasing fertility rates in the UK, Farage said.
Calling for some very, very big cultural changes to persuade Britons to have children, he went on: Weve got to start telling young kids that hard work is good, that success is good, that there are no shortcuts in life, that making money is good.
Amity
So, this is a roll-back, a regression whereby rather than welcome migrants or those with other belief systems, women are to fill the population decline by producing babies, of a certain kind.
The focus turning to Judeo-Christian religion rather than a secular society.
***
Quoting The Guardian - 'This moment is medieval' - Katz
Trump and Elon Musks Doge [Department of Government Efficiency] team is freezing funding for swathes of non-profits, including many of those that should be protected by the Violence Against Women Act, he says. Theyre getting rid of DEI [diversity, equality and inclusion] initiatives and anything with the keyword woman is coming under scrutiny. People who work in the area are stunned and despairing. This isnt a normal moment it is medieval and a huge rollback of progress.
***
Amongst other strategies, Katz employs the 'bystander approach':
Quoting The Guardian
Since there are almost 400 million guns in circulation in the US, Katz emphasises that his approach is not to engage in potentially dangerous public interventions, but rather to focus on known peer cultures like friends, teammates and co-workers. People dont speak in those situations, because of social fear, but by framing the guy who speaks up as a strong man, or a good friend, youre making it positive and aspirational, which has more likelihood of success, he says. The most important aspect is making sure those in positions of power speak up the loudest and that our leaders are confronting the issues, too, as that is where widespread change can happen.
With the most powerful political leader in the world in the process of opposing much of what Katz advocates, he emphasises the need for persistence and bravery from bystanding men a show of leadership in the absence of a leader. We cant tell boys that bullying is bad and then equally reward bullies like Trump in power, Katz says. Theres a lot of fear in the face of a rightwing populist government, but we need men to loudly oppose him, otherwise real people will be harmed. Were living in a different world now and its urgent.
I would like to hear more from the political opposition. I am concerned that there is no clear, messaging from those who should be out there. First of all listening, then being a bold voice for the people most affected by recent momentous, regressive changes.
***
Finally, it fascinated me that Katz made reference to the philosopher, John Stuart Mill:
Quoting The Guardian
He believes it may be the first time a major commercial publisher has released a book about mens violence against women that has been written by a man.
Its shocking to me, because you can go as far back as John Stuart Mill writing a critique of marital rape in 1869 to see how men have been talking about the issue, Katz says. We have been doing this work for a long time and the book is a toolkit for other men to get themselves involved. Its our moral, ethical and human duty to help women in this struggle together.
The live link in the article takes you to:
The Subjection of Women - John Stuart Mill
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/mill1869.pdf
This is not the original but an adaption by Jonathan Bennett. I haven't read it, as yet. Apparently, there is added material and I am not sure that it accurately reflects Mill's views. There is an editorial explanation about the aids to grasp the structure of a sentence or thought. It highlights main points. From p5/62:
Quoting The Subjection of Women - John Stuart Mill
(2) The adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what would be best for humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the dawn of human society every woman was in a state of bondage to some man, because she was of value to him and she had less muscular strength than he did.
I'd be interested to hear from others who have views on Mill and his thoughts.
From wiki:
At the time of its publication, the essay's argument for equality between the sexes was an affront to European conventional norms regarding the status of men and women.
Also, how likely is it that, not only men, but people generally are willing to stand up against the powerful?
How many of us are frustrated in our lack of power, our vulnerability to imposed, dramatic change?
How many will turn to the 'certainties' and 'strength' of a male, dictator?
It's doubtful that reading Mills will help in any way. So, who to turn to for guidance?
Will people be seduced or coerced back to the comforts of the religion of the patriarchy?
Comments (75)
I hesitate to argue with you John, but it seems to me more likely that the dawn of civilisation would most likely have been matrilineal, because there is rarely much doubt of an offspring's maternity, whereas paternity would be hard to establish. It follows that the subjugation of women, essential to a patrilineal system that predominates today and since historical times, was indeed a deliberate, revolutionary act that inverted the 'natural' order. The difference in muscular strength is too small to overcome alone, the natural advantage of giving birth, and thus knowing one's offspring with certainty.
(In a matrilineal system, men can still dominate in some ways, but the offspring they would primarily regard as "theirs" would be their sister's children, not what modern man takes to be his own, usually on faith.)
Unlikely.
Almost everyone I speak with.
Lots, but only in the name of change and a bright future.
No one. No one can help.
Yes. Though requiring everyone to have an income, and the continued availability of washing machines, will stop the worst excesses of that backslide. Those In Power have no ability to stop women from working, I believe.
It's worth noting that every demographic swung harder for Trump than anticipated. And also that people tend to get more culturally conservative or fash-y in times of economic duress. Original article is quite ahistorical, it's a normal Guardian speculative gender thinkpiece.
What happened after women joined the work force? The people in power raised prices to match a double income.
Now a family is expected to have high double incomes to be fairly stable... now both the parents are absent the child's life... and the childreb have to be watched by people who really don't give a fuck cause they're watching 20 other screaming shitting lasses and lads...
My sister found her child face down and unconscious at a daycare when she went to pick him up. Kid has a brain injury now.
Jobs were practically made for men to become more complete... because ancient man looked at women and evaluated they have menstruation to show they've reached adulthood. Jobs and all that shit were for men to become more complete, to become adults...and serve their society. Women were intrinsically complete...
That women want to find a purpose other than baby machine is one thing... but Nietzsche warned about the masculinization of the feminine instincts further... and now Transgenderism is popping off (vast majority of which is mtf) because the feminine instinct of humanity is so repressed...that it's having a spasmodic release of built up tension...
Slave morality idolizes the masculine in this way.
An increasing number, apparently. And the arch-apologist broadcaster spins it as a 'far left' conspiracy, 'far left', in his case, meaning any organization that promotes liberty, democracy and equality - you know, those radical American ideals they tried to enshrine in a constitution and its 27 amendments.
Quoting Amity
The one good thing about the Trump regime is its rush into madness. They could have snuck up on people, as clever dictators do, incrementally but Chubby-T is neither clever nor patient. Single best thing he's done to bring down his own administration: appointing Musk Slasher-in-chief. They can do an enormous amount of damage and hurt an awful lot of people before any change can take place.... but....
It should provide a warning to other populations leaning hard right.
OTOH,
the main drivers of the rightward shift are not going away just because we oppose the methods of their representatives. Automation proceeds headlong to deprive people of jobs they need in order to live in a home and be properly nourished. Price-gauging in food distribution, housing and transportation continues to make life harder for working people and untenable for the unemployed. Arable and habitable land is shrinking; inter- and intra-national conflicts turn large populations into migrants and refugees. As hardship increases, so does discontent and when discontent grows, so does the need for scapegoats.
Women in the workforce have been an irritant to some portion of male population since the end on WWI; the more women are educated and well-paid for executive and technical positions that men used to consider their exclusive domain, the greater the resentment from men who don't like to compete: the ones who don't perform well in school, are less meticulous, lack discipline would like much better to rule by force of brawn. The mainstream religions did nothing to set them straight, not just because they themselves are patriarchal in organization, but because women do the unpaid church-related charity work and each denomination is jealous of its parishioner numbers: depend on the reproduction of the faithful.
It's much easier for the exploiting classes to point at bogus causes for the people's anxiety, to goad the resentful into hatred and backlash against progress than to create conditions wherein people can co-exist with a minimum of discomfort.
For example, automation could always have been appropriately supervised and taxed, working hours reduced accordingly; quality day-care and primary education provided at work-places; good public housing, sanitation, education, health-care and elder-care provided by the government; a living wage for migrant workers and non-discriminatory housing and banking regulation and genuine equal treatment of citizens under the law and in the work-force.
All of these measures could have been implemented from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, when is social upheavals were first observed. A few progressive industrialists made sincere efforts on behalf of their workers and neighbours, but by 1914, social conscience had pretty much been drained out of capitalism. The robber barons would rather buy corrupt politicians than sound policies.
If only Mill were alive to see how the libertarian progress and legislation made over centuries are now being ripped apart, decimated by powerful, misogynistic males.
Perhaps that is viewed as the 'natural' way. An evolution of revolutions and resolutions. A natural cycle.
Can we ever break out of this - 'it was ever thus' view of life?
It's unfortunate that I only quoted a very small part of his influential essay. Its significance lies in the impact of his argument concerning the legal and social inequality between the sexes. It shows a way to move people with the strength of a clear idea and its presentation. The start of a slow but sure change.
An Introduction:
Quoting Libertarianism - Introduction to Mill's The Subjection of Women
Who is the Mill of today? Who can maintain and promote the progressive vision? How we need more than legislation that can be overturned, so swiftly. How there is a need to show respect to each other everyday. Small steps in careful listening, not just to counteract but with a view to understanding. How each of us matters and not just as a material resource. How we can't just give in to dictators.
In the name of a promised change and a bright future.
The promise to Make America Great Again. How's that working out?
The voters who believed in the words of a felon, a con man, a would-be dictator.
Quoting fdrake
Reading the Introduction to Mill's Essay has helped me see the possibilities of philosophers and others who act for change, for improvement in how things are and how they might be.
People in all spheres of life voicing opinions from a position of strength and creativity. Those with imagination who can inspire others. Wherever there is a platform where people gather.
Quoting fdrake
So, those in comfortable circumstances will not feel the need? I think, even then, there are fears and anxieties that make people turn to a beneficent God. Or King of the World who will look after their interests over those of others.
Women can be prevented from working for a host of reasons. The lack of support in child or social care for the elderly, means that they are the prime carers of family and home. Pulled every way.
If there is a major cultural change in the offing, to increase amount of babies - will they be paid for that?
Or will it be a patriotic duty?
Quoting fdrake
The economy is the main political issue. If voters perceive that they are worse off under a certain government, then they will change. If they believe in false promises and in a 'strong' leader, then that is who they will vote for. Even if they know that he is a liar! Go figure!
The article is also an advertisement for the author's book. Nevertheless, it makes good points and shows how an activist can make a difference. It's about all I can manage in a morning. If there are other articles or resources you have in mind, then lead the way!
I hope to read it and respond as soon as. :flower:
tolerate the abuse of his close cherished girl-child. The experience and memory of elders, both male and female were essential and respected and wise elders do not countenance waste or internal strife.
*They're making quite respectable progress toward regaining those ancient values. But, though the official discrimination eased up - at least in Canada, for the moment - many lands and other rights are still in dispute; the natives are a long way from self-determination. John Ralston Saul's book has some wise commentary on the subject, though it's a little out of date.
Everything changed with the ownership - not the cultivation - of land and the ascendance of warrior and priestly castes. Thereafter, social value was linked to dominance rather than contribution; both property and status were competed-for and jealously guarded; it was then that genetic provenance became important to men for their heritage and succession. It was then, too, that more and more new soldiers were required from the baby-dispensers to bulk up the unproductive and very expensive standing armies. So the hierarchical societies, which relied on conquest to increase their wealth, built reproductive bondage into their religious doctrines.
Again I have to disagree with the great man. The state of slavery is not primitive; it is a sophisticated systematic exploitation of one group by another. It is not a natural occurrence and it doesn't happen by accident.
It is very important to understand that patrilineal inheritance, which allows for men to inherit property from their fathers, absolutely demands as precondition the sexual control of women. This is normalised by patriarchal religion and enforced by the laws enumerated above, and enforced by the threat of rape. Uppity women are "asking for it".
You're so much more succinct than I am.
Thanks! I'll be a bit more verbose then. :wink:
Here is the economic situation. The invisible, or blatantly obvious, hand is operating according to new rules. The old rules were endless growth, mass production, and mass consumption, with the 'entrepreneurs' taking the cream of the surplus. The ideology still prevails, but the realities have changed, and the 'entrepreneurs' have noticed a long time since.
AI and robotics mean that the mass of human labour force is no longer part of the means of production. This means that the majority of humans are economically redundant. Consider, for example, the size of the entertainment industry. it produces nothing - no bread, only circus. Add on the bureaucracy, the caring industry, beauty and fashion, sport, ... production of anything tangible is the province of a tiny minority.
But the literal killer is that production is becoming possible on a one off basis, with 3d printing for example. The end point for all this is indeed medieval a few robber barons with robot armies instead of serfs. 'The People' will cease to exist. That is the vision towards which the oligarchy is moving the world. It doesn't even require a conspiracy, because it is plain economic sense. The world will be so much easier to control without all these wretched greedy peasants.
Write to your president with your objections, or post them here. Either will be equally effective.
Yes. The madness came to the fore yesterday with the Trump-Zelensky meeting.
I've discussed it here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/973051
There is no doubt that 'an enormous amount of damage' is being carried out to 'hurt an awful lot of people'. It is more than a warning, it is world-changing.
Quoting Vera Mont
Exactly this.
***
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes. A lot of things could have been done - and still could be done - differently. If there was a commitment to a long-term vision for the benefit of the people.
Instead, what we have are prolonged pre-electioneering pandering, changing policies to suit what the public will buy. Sound bites and media manipulating beliefs about perceived enemies.
Vanity projects whose costs keep growing and which go nowhere. Corrupt systems now accepted as 'normal'. Nobody even bothers to hide their bullying and misogyny. Those such as the vile Trump are esteemed when they talk and act in hatred.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes. The philanthropist that easily springs to mind in Andrew Carnegie. I think of him often when I despair of how today's top billionaires spend their money to empower and enrich themselves.
Quoting Wiki
I am sure that philanthropy is still a thing but it is well-hidden. And I am unsure how it relates to 'slavery' in any form. Or their beliefs about taxation, religion and minorities.
All I see, right now, is greed beyond belief and a deterioration of life and wellbeing.
The latest from Trump is shocking and sickening.
If, as you suggested elsewhere, the opposition is working on a strategy, then I hope they are taking good care. To get it right. Using whatever legislative means are left to deal with this mad monstrosity.
Before it is too late.
Trump is a 'clear and present danger'.
https://legalclarity.org/what-is-the-governments-definition-of-clear-and-present-danger/
Thank you for your informative and helpful exchanges.
Quoting unenlightened
Oh dear, we are in deep shit, are we not?! :sad:
At least, we can still talk about it...sharing the load and finding some harmony in music and whotnot...
Take care. Enjoy the day, if you can. :sparkle: :pray: :flower:
I forgot to mention the environment and climate change. Deep and wide, and nary a paddle.
Time for some music...
Joan Baez - We Shall Overcome (BBC Television Theatre, London - June 5, 1965)
"I may not get there with you, but I have seen the promised land." (MLK)
Herewith, a call to arms, along with a realist's mea culpa.
In terms of philanthropy, I commend to you one Jimmy Carter, whose foundation has worked quietly to eliminate the Guinea worm, a truly disgusting and agonising parasite. They have almost succeeded, and I hear no credit being given to the founder because, who (else) cares about Africa!
I think N might be able to help you with that...
Human All Too Human § 415 on the Idolatry of Love... which was originally a device of the female intellect that over centuries women forgot the origin of love, and became ensnared and more deceived by it than men... basically the sophisticated slavery you're speaking about...
Gay Science 68 on women molding themselves to mans ideal out of that need for love. Your quote
Quoting unenlightened reminds me of that last bit from 68 where some guy from the crowd says they need to educate women better (so they don't corrupt men)...
I'm certain that Nietzsche is not relevant to the topic -- he was not a misogynist in your terms -- but he is very much a masculine philosopher. His philosophy is from the male perspective, through and through.
Whereas this thread is talking aboutQuoting Amity
Which, you probably know, Nietzsche had a disdain for "ordinary people"
Is that why the highest presentment of man is through the doctrine of Athena? A woman? (According to Nietzsche)
Odd that a masculine philosopher would state man's highest presentment is in the doctrine of a woman...when Nietzsche asks "who but I knows Ariadne?" He's asking: who but I know the feminine instinct?
But not in this thread, is all I mean.
Nietzsche brings this up time and time again when he bashes on the Semitic idea of "woman."
Not heeding Nietzsche is just willful ignorance.
I get it you guys don't like that you have a hard time understanding Nietzsche. But he's all over this topic in his philosophy. Remember there was a time before women were seen as Sin and Corruption... there was a time before women needed to be locked away and repressed.
I like Nietzsche a lot. So I'm responding in that capacity -- as the man said The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
What the thread is about, however, is this moment.
Quoting Amity
Nietzsche, I imagine at least, would be fine with these various struggles -- not that he'd like them, of course, but would accept them as the Will to Power.
Which seems to go against the idea that this moment is Medieval. The real Nietzsche would abhor our current circumstances, I believe. But his written philosophy -- in terms of what it does, rather than its truth -- supports this endless striving.
It's a lumpen-Nietzsche, but it's popular.
And, in that way, I don't think he's the best philosopher to deal with these issues.
The highest and lowest are complementary to the same causes and both are required ...BGE200
Just as the Apollonian and Dionysian incite each other to higher and higher births so too do higher men and the masses... because higher men and the masses bridge over their mutual cause. Abusing the other to the point of life denial is slave morality...
Do you honestly think Nietzsche would be upset about the abused rising up to affirm the demands of their life? No. Literally what he details of master morality... but if the abused rose up to then make a system of life denial against those they overcame... yes.
Have you read Moorcock's novel Dancers at the End of Time?
But meanwhile, the peasants are still needed to do all that buying and consuming, tax-, rent- and interest-paying. How they gonna do that when half are in law-enforcement and the other half in jail?
Quoting Amity
Not hidden, so much as ignored. While most philantrophy throws crumbs to the poor or supports their church and highbrow arts, some is actually directed toward improved living conditions for the third world ... uh ... developing countries. They're not all evil, but the money they give is first gained by the wrong means and the spending of it feeds capitalism. That is: they suck up a huge amount of the world's natural and human resources and replenish a very small part, while perpetuating the system that caused all the misery they're trying to alleviate.
Quoting Amity
It's March. We'll soon find out whether my addled prophet had the right vision for the wrong year.
Quoting unenlightened
Bill Gates, I understand, though apparently not always in the right way. Carter was a uniquely human individual, massively underappreciated by his country. Capitalism corrupts more than transactional behaviour; it degrades language and rots minds.
This was indeed a very crafty trick they pulled on us. Double the labor force, halve the price of labor.
But the people in power are men, and so it is men's fault.
But apparently it's not proper to speak about educating men on their patriarchal repression of women here in this thread. Even though this thread is seemingly about that.
Thank you for repeating and clarifying what this thread is about. To reinforce:
Quoting Moliere
Quoting Amity
It is primarily a discussion about 'this moment' of crisis as being regressive and how activists can counteract some of the main problems.
Misogyny is one of 3 issues mentioned. But more than that, it is about human rights.
So far, exchanges have been most informative and engaging:
the interlinking of history, philosophy, politics and religion. Economics, philanthropy and libertarianism.
And more!
***
The need to show leadership in opposition:
Quoting Amity
***
To return to the concept and practice of misogyny. It is not new but it is on the increase, especially in Trumpian circles and beyond, as previously discussed. It might be worthwhile to define it and how it is used. So, a quick wiki:
Quoting Wiki - Misogyny
Whether the above mentioned philosophers are misogynists can be questioned. Their ideas and influence can be evaluated on their own merit. Looking back at their own time, circumstance and context. But that is another story, for another thread. Probably.
I'd be interested to hear how philosophers in general can be considered activists in the sense of making a difference to socio-cultural change. Where are they now, at this 'moment of crisis'?
Or what (practical) wisdom, imagination and energy can be brought to the table from all spheres of life?
Quoting Amity
Me bringing up points that Nietzsche discusses this in verbose style is both on topic and was to back precisely what @unenlightened said...
That you lot want to pretend Nietzsche doesn't belong here is the side track... not me, I know he brings a lot of food for thought to this table...
If you wanna say Nietzsche's a misogynist take it to my thread. Not cry about how he doesn't belong here.
Otherwise, that you can't muster a counter to my thread, declaring Nietzsche as a misogynist, then you're letting my argument stand...
He, like Mills, is a little out of date, Nietzsche, more out of tune - on every subject, with any mainstream thought - each formed by a different time and culture.
Thing is, you can't educate men who have gotten their own way, or think they have. Women are hardly the only ones shaping and adapting themselves to fit an image made by someone more powerful: men have been allowing themselves to be defined by nationality, caste, occupation, education and sports franchise since the dawn of civilization. They, too, serve their kings and generals, foremen and CEO's; wear the required uniform, speak the expected passwords... and lose themselves. Unless the men are liberated*, they will continue to oppress women, children and livestock at every opportunity.
* Some men, in all historical periods have managed to liberate themselves and then gone on to speak up in behalf of the women, the slaves, the factory workers, the children and even the animals. They are usually punished for it by the men they try to educate.
Oh please.
Hehe, well to be fair I don't think OP is declaring "everything wrong in society is man's fault." But rather misogyny and the manosphere is something that's man's fault majority wise. Sure there may be some women counterparts to it but they're not the prime movers.
They're secondary game-pieces, deluded by false promises of security, while men, deluded by false promises of autonomy are the primary game pieces. Neither are movers; both are moved. Looking to set one another straight is as futile as blaming one another - these controversies are noting more than devices to keep us - not just men and women, but Christians and Muslims, migrants and natives, blacks and whites, city and country, red and blue, perpetually divided so that we can never take effective action against our common oppressors.
I've just watched the video you posted. A speech by the Conservative David Brooks from the ARC convention. A good mix of serious and humour.
It was more than I expected and most welcome to my ears. His story in the final minutes from 13:00 summed up the humanity. The 'radical humanism' where people look at each other and imagine themselves in another's shoes. Basically, it's having empathy and compassion.
Well, I am guilty of ignorance. Or a bad memory. I can't remember hearing about the Guinea worm.
I'm glad you drew attention to the power of philanthropy, even if it acts quietly. It is unfortunate that we don't hear more about this kind of enterprise or give credit to all those concerned.
Being aware of good work and progress brings a sense of balance to all the nastiness and regression.
Thank you. :sparkle: :flower:
If you're waiting for your oppressor to liberate you, don't hold your breath.
Rather, as Paulo Freire explains, it is the oppressed who must liberate themselves and the oppressor from their toxic relationship. This is because the oppressed are motivated to understand and transcend the social order. The oppressor will always appeal to the authorities and mistake the social order for the moral order, the natural order, the unchangeable, necessary order.
A name I recognised but who I hadn't explored. I was going to ask for the source - and I would love to hear more from you - however, I found this:
https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf
The 30th Anniversary edition of Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. - pdf 181 pages.
I've just read the personal and illuminating Introduction by Donaldo Macedo pp 9-24.
So engaging. So far, so fascinated...
***
Quoting unenlightened
I understand this up to a point but have questions. How can the oppressed liberate the oppressor?
Yes, they may well be motivated to understand but not all will have this motivation or capacity or access - to transcend the social order or class system.
The oppressor need not always appeal to the authorities but their own will and power.
So many different kinds of 'order'...social, moral, natural, necessary. Does it mean the oppressors cling to the status quo of e.g. religion as being the order of the day and should not be changed? But yet, oppressors can be the ones who rebelled against the prevailing world order.
Who is being identified as the 'oppressed' and the 'oppressor'?
Not all oppressed people have the same experiences or similar opportunities to be 'free'.
From wiki:
Quoting Wiki - Pedagogy of the Oppressed
How do you map all of this onto what is happening now? How does it apply?
How realistic is it to expect such from those oppressed? Or who are simply in opposition to a new stronger power adversely affecting their lives? How can they change things around?
Hardly ever, if history is anything to go by. The masses generally support the status quo: the oppressed are loud in their defence of the social order and take it for the moral order, the natural order, the unchangeable, necessary order. That's exactly where all discussions of capitalism, vegetarianism and American-style democracy very quickly go. The most oppressed only ever revolt under the leadership of an unoppressed elite - that is, middle-class intellectuals who had the luxury of an education, the leisure for reflection and the freedom to speak. But without the education, reflection and deliberation, the revolting oppressed, fuelled by anger and heedless of consequence, turn into oppressors - or monsters.
How we liberate one another, oppressed and oppressor, and find our humanity, is through the spirit level. Essentially, organizing society horizontally rather then vertically. In practical terms, this is what a properly functioning democracy would accomplish in two or three generations. Which is why oppressors and aspiring oppressors invariably corrupt democratic systems.
I don't understand. The state of oppression is exactly a state of inequality, and the solution is exactly to move to a state of more equality. So how does that happen?
A century and a half or so of the women's movement has gotten women the right to own property, the right to vote, the right (in principle) to equal pay. I think it is done by establishing an equality of the oppressed. And from there the education of the oppressor can begin.
What is happening now is the collapse of capitalist democracy. There is a transfer of power from democratically elected politicians to the oligarchs. Everyone who is not an oligarch is oppressed, including politicians. I will also include the rest of the natural world.
So we have been playing monopoly for a century or so, and now we can see who has won. So that game is over, and we can ignore the winners counting their money and gloating, and get on with our spirited levelling without them. It's a better game, and lasts longer. Start here, or wherever you may happen to be.
That movement happened while democracy functioned reasonably well. After a shake-up of the class structure and economy via war and technological change, redistributed some wealth and expanded education and woke the ex-soldiers and female factory workers to their own potential. Even so, it was a slow, hard climb.
Quoting unenlightened
Only, that is a long way from done, anywhere, and even while progress seemed to be speeding up, the anti-democratic factions were busy undermining it and corrupting the means of governance.
Quoting unenlightened
Make that 6 millennia and it's not exactly over. Those who have won will not let anybody else ignore them or form coalitions against their control. The worst part is, they've always been able to persuade plebes to do their oppressing of other plebes.
I appreciate the efforts of individuals, groups and organizations that work toward mitigating the fallout, adapting their lifestyle and forming supportive communities or preparing the survivors for a changed world. I can't fight down the conviction that it's too little, far too late. But I'll certainly check out your link, which looks very positive.
Divide and rule is always the rule, and solidarity is the only resistance, but solidarity can become an oppression of its own. So education, so humble teachers always learning, so democracy in education.
I have no final solutions, I'm just describing what I think I see. And yeah, history is long, and never finished.
To Ramona - Bob Dylan.
This is a truism, not a truth. We're still seeing suns that no longer exist and not seeing planets that once flourished.
I take your meaning and laud your principles; it's the long term I don't believe in.
Thank you for this and the link. Positive and inspiring.
Yes, we are all in this game of life, so we must try to keep our spirits from falling to the low level people would push us. Deep, deep, down.
It's natural to go through ups and downs. Experience and knowledge of how to cope with physical and mental challenges can help to balance spirits. To rise from the depths, stay afloat, find our tranquil waters and space to breathe. Sharing thoughts, like this. Here. Right now.
But sometimes, we are our own worst enemy. We dwell in the dark spots of our mind. The inner voice of the 'devil' giving us a hard time. Be good to yourself, first and foremost.
What do you mean by that? And what does it mean for the way you feel and live your life now?
Things end. Stars implode; species go extinct, civilizations collapse; biological entities die. Like every story, the history of the human race has a natural ending. I know that my personal death is not far off and believe that one or more of those other endings is also inevitable - I'm hoping it's collapse of this civilization, rather than extinction, because that allows me to imagine a new, more positive human story.
The way I live is pretty much the same as it was in optimistic youth: a compromise with modernity and capitalism; trying to keep my footprint small without giving up ordinary comforts; trying to effect change, without giving up my tenuous security. These days, I don't go on futile marches or campaign for losers; I just write books nobody reads.
Thing is, I lived through a full cycle of history: from the wreckage left behind that great global insanity we fondly recall as WWII, through the decades of technological and social progress experienced by fortunate first-worlders, the elation of winning battles in civil rights, reproductive rights, gay rights, workers' rights... only to see it all clawed back, torn down and trampled again. Just as it had been a hundred times before in other civilizations. Meanwhile, we were gobbling up the bounty of this planet, not to improve the lot of all mankind but to enrich a few, and turning it into, not useful manure but toxic waste and debt-bondage.
I saw the dark tunnel opening one spring day in 1976, four years after the first summit in Stockholm on preventing climate change - a very hopeful thing that had been! I was having lunch with colleagues and one of them ordered imported bottled water . Four more years later, not only had none of the promises been kept, but resource extraction, automobile use, industrialization, deforestation and pollution had accelerated sharply. Then the three nations of most concern to me elected the Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney axis to govern our affairs. It's been downhill since, with very few moguls to slow the descent.
It looks to me like each period of madness in history ends in greater destruction. Is this one big enough to be the last? We can hope not, but I left my faith in humanity in the 20th century.
Sounds like this is very much appearing as a ghostly apparition (not in the sense it doesn't exist, in the sense it is weak and not very effective) in the Western world. This isn't to say someone like Trump doesn't embolden thoughts in those who have them - but if you were to ask any person, and press them, on their views about women, the chances that you'll come to anything close to what's represented in this definition (not going to wade in Manne's nonsense) are not so much low, but rare.
This is why defining things on their outcomes is an extremely bad practice, if we want to change outcomes. Defining things by their intent allows us to illustrate that someone who is, at base, not misogynistic, is, in fact, behaving in a way that perpetuates misogyny without forcing them accept a mind state they literally do not hold.
Probably worth stepping back a bit, taking a breath and realizing we're not in a fucking crisis either. Women have never been more powerful, revered or protected in the West. And we're doing better than anywhere else by far.
Quoting Vera Mont
This strikes me as the exact out-of-perspective thinking that everyone of every age who wants to feel good about themselves would put forward. We are not at any special stage of history, other than the forefront. Our time will be relegated like any other, and a future time will be more important at that time. It strikes me as nonsensical, and panicked. Hence, step back, take a breath - this is not a crisis. It's a point in history. LIke any other. Pretending we're in special circumstances is a really weird move, other than to ensure you don't give up - whcih seems weak to me.
He appointed the first female chief of staff. I think he is sexist, but wants to exploit talent more than he wants to misogynize.
Oddly enough, the perspective doesn't make me feel the slightest bit good. Can you cite where I've gone wrong on facts or statistics?
Quoting Vera Mont
You've not understood what I've said. "About themselves" is appended to what you've responded to. And, in this sense, you're continuing the trend it seems by somehow saying you don't feel good about... not feeling good. I think we've been here before, Vera.
Seems to me, it is only perspective that can lead to these sorts of rants (not derogatory - anything adequately complete will be a rant in this context). If this were based on 'facts' then your personal feelings wouldn't be relevant. When i speak of perspective here, it's an impetus that says "No, it is not likely that your view of your own era is accurate, historically. Nor could it be". And so having a bit of perspective may well change your feelings regardless of "the facts and statistics" which are not here, anyway. You claim both to live as a optimistic youth, but carry an abysmal view of the world in whcih you live, which has only "gone downhill" for fifty years. *shrug* i guess.
Yes, things end but things also start. While the human race may well die at some point, we must live in the present. It all seems negative right now because of the dramatic changes starting with the election of Trump and gang in America. The knock-on effects not only in USA but world-wide.
***
Quoting Vera Mont
It is clear that you care for people, animals, the environment and the effects of power. And more.
While marches may seem futile, they and campaigns are not about losing. They are about fighting for justice and a way to come together - to show we are not alone.
Just as reading or writing a book can help us imagine other places and people. To connect.
I know you write fiction. I've enjoyed reading your short stories in TPF Literary Activity.
I know you write in areas of philosophy, in an engaging manner, with real world experience.
I know you write novels - I haven't read any, as yet.
I'm not sure how autobiographical or biographical they are.
Writing a novel is an accomplishment in itself. I doubt I will ever do that. However, I write here.
It helps to clarify my thoughts by releasing them...hither and thither.
It exercises my brain and sometimes it even produces something of value.
Writing is not always going to be read.
There will be a Philosophy Writing Challenge, starting June 1st:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15749/philosophy-writing-challenge-june-2025-announcement/p1
I hope to contribute something. Already, I'm being challenged. Reining in a multitude of ideas.
So, this thread is a bit of a distraction from the direction I was taking. But necessary.
***
Quoting Vera Mont
This powerful paragraph is a wonderful telling of your story, in the context of a changing world. Subjective and objective, as a participant and observer. A package of decades, passing.
***
Quoting Vera Mont
This thing about bottled water. I've been thinking about water as a resource more vital than any mineral.
I use water from the tap. In Scotland, so far, it is safe, refreshing and free.
Recently, I read of the increase in - of all things, constipation in England's children.
I can't help thinking that this is related not only to poor dietary choice, lack of exercise but insufficient fluid intake. In England and Wales, people have to pay for water at point of use. Water is metered.
You talk of the terrible Thatcher. One instance of her policies - Water and Sewage Privatisation.
Quoting Wiki - Water Privatisation
I'm not sure of the current situation but, here's only a smidgeon of the sewage spills:
Quoting Plymouth Herald
Of course, this is nothing compared to other countries who have little to no access to clean water.
Millions don't have the basics and rely on charity and aid. Aid for toilets and good hygiene to prevent diseases.
This kind of humanitarian aid is being shut down by Trump. More here:
Quoting BBC - USAID - Why Trump wants to end it
***
Quoting Vera Mont
It is a pity that you have lost faith in humanity. But understandable. You are perceptive. Noting with keen eyes: the dark tunnel opening one spring day in 1976,.
This thread was/is an attempt to see, or even shed, some light. To counteract the darkness.
To lift the lid, to examine and understand the problems being faced right now. How to proceed.
I started with only one article as an example of activism. There are more situations to be discussed.
Haven't yet touched on the racism of the white supremacist, fascism of Trump and his thugs.
At this moment, using their power to overturn decades of slow and uncertain progress.
The question is how best to push back.
I'd be interested to hear the effects of this on others, perhaps activists like @180 Proof?
What's going on?
It is a powerful song but the setting here was vanilla. A young white audience barely mouthing the words.
As part of the Civil Rights Movement it is only one among many protest songs.
I've been looking for a better version. Or any empowering song. @180 Proof - any ideas?
So far, I've got this:
Joan Baez performs "We Shall Overcome" at the March on Washington
The first steps are the hardest...
The Civil Rights Movement Timeline, 1905-1975
https://www.blackpast.org/civil-rights-movement-timeline/
***
What's Going On - Marvin Gaye
No. It is not only about feelings but a welcome personal insight. No facts or statistics necessary.
To backtrack, Vera was responding to my question:
Quoting Amity
Quoting AmadeusD
Personal feelings are relevant when giving a perspective on the effects of critical moments. There is a meeting of subjective experience and objective observations.
It is as accurate as memory allows and history shows. It relates to the present and future.
It is derogatory to suggest this is a 'rant'. Not to mention condescending in tone.
Quoting AmadeusD
So what, if this has been discussed before. It is new to this thread and new readers.
It bears repeating.
Quoting AmadeusD
Vera's response and current perspective is understandable. The feelings are understandable. The thoughts and writing are understandable. There is an honest sharing and wisdom to be tapped. It requires careful listening and questioning. It is of value. I share much of her concern.
Which is why I'm here.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't understand how you reach your conclusions as bolded. It doesn't make sense to me.
This is a point in history but not like any other.
There has been a significant change in circumstances. As discussed here and elsewhere.
One example: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15754/the-musk-plutocracy/p1
Nobody is pretending anything. This is a crisis. If you don't recognise that, then so be it.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well, like most, we see what we want to see. Not what we need to see. Or know what and where to look for an informed and broader view. That takes will, time and energy we don't all have.
It could be worthwhile to start a discussion on misogyny, to explore its meaning, statistics and evidence. Locally, internationally and globally. But that is more than I am prepared to do, right now.
Misogyny is only part of Trump's regressive destruction of rights and justice systems.
Happening right now.
Full throttle.
Without a breath.
It is not a time to step back. But yes, to take a deep breath and step up. In whatever way we can.
I didn't respond to this part of your post. Perhaps because I agreed.
Friends I speak with share feelings of frustration and powerlessness. And shrug. What can be done?
In this county, we seldom need to stand up against the powerful.
But it can be done to great effect, even if it takes its toll.
What comes to mind is the Poll Tax Protest.
Against Thatcher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riots
That seems like a lifetime ago. And now such a thing is unlikely to happen. Given the criminalisation of protest. I've had a quick look and found this downloadable article, as yet unread but seems pertinent:
Quoting Springer - The Effects of Criminalisation on Activists
It seems easy to become a criminal in USA and to be imprisoned for decades. For small offences.
The exceptions, of course, are those in power. Big offences overlooked. Even rewarded as in Trump.
Quoting Boston University - Trump Convicted Felon - Does that mean anything?
And now, of course, he an outlaw is above the law. Laws he makes for himself and his oligarch thugs.
Private prisons are big business. Booming in America. So, motivation to increase cages. And build more.
It is understandable that people are wary of protesting. Even holding an opposing point of view is dangerous. Even looking the wrong way at someone; having the wrong look or colour can land you in trouble. Big time. For the ethnic minorities. For being homeless through no fault of your own.
And when protests do happen, we are not always told of them. Or shown the pictures...
A photograph of a moment in time can be a powerful message.
Let's make an album! Black and white. Or colour...static or moving. Singing...
Where are the creatives? To move away from the medieval. To progress.
A 'coalition of the willing'...not just for the politicians.
I forgot to ask: Why do you think it unlikely? There are many reasons.
No matter...
I see. An overview of history is insufficient basis for an opinion. OK
Quoting Amity
I have all those teeshirts. The last campaign I supported was a Green; some previous ones were NDP. This riding is solid fake Tory - the Alliance stabbed them in the back and stole their name some decades ago. All my candidates are plucky little losers. I simply meant that the winning streak my generation enjoyed is over; this is the down-slope before the next up, which may be next year or next century or never - I don't know. There is hope, but its heart beats faintly now.
Keep feeding the little winged creatures on your window sill. Stay strong, dear friend. :pray: :flower:
No, and you would do well not to quip when you've clearly not understood what has been said. We've been here before too, Vera.
She claimed to have them. There were none. Please re-read the exchange, because you're defending something explicitly stated, as not stated.
Quoting Amity
I am aware. This is not relevant for the subsequent exchange.
Quoting Amity
I'm sorry, but you literally quoted me disowning this in explicit terms. It has nothing to do with me if you're either unable to read, or not able to understand. I did my diligence here and wont be held to your internal offense meter.
I also note your response is pointless, and entirely out of pocket. I was talking to Vera. Not you.
Quoting Amity
You do not understand, whatsoever, what that line means. Vera does. Because she and I have been here before.
Quoting Amity
Then none of this makes sense. Speak with her.
Quoting Amity
No point in history is like any other. Ironically, histrionics is what has people making these claims. We are not special. Our time is not special.
Quoting Amity
No, it isn't. Most people in those threads you mention are absolutely out of their minds on panic and sniffing their own arses. If you cannot see that, so be it. But given I spend time outside of lil political bubbles, and subscribe to no common ideologies, It is clear as day.
Quoting Amity
Correct. That is what I have pointed out.
Quoting Amity
That's fair, but probably best not to broach that then to avoid being charged with being either a diletante or coward. I am not intending to insult - this seems a correct view.
Quoting Amity
You think a crisis is in full swing. You're bound to say these things. If you could enumerate what rights you're talking about, we can discuss. (Roe v Wade wont go well for anyone arguing that this is a removal of women's rights - it is patently not, unless you consider access to specific medical procedures a human right. If you do, fine. I don't).
I might do well not to quip... But I do better, quipping.
I always understand what you mean; I just don't agree with it.
Quoting AmadeusD
I didn't claim anything; I asked a question: do you have a factual basis for saying that my perspective is wrong? I have piles of facts and statistics, dates and events. I often choose to share them. Didn't seem worth my while this time. You have an opinion. I have a different opinion. I answered Amity's question honestly. Your response was not relevant. Quoting AmadeusD
I was talking to Amity. Not you. (Didn't even know you were lurking.)
Quoting AmadeusD
I expect that's pretty much what Romulus Augustulus said, the year before he was deposed.
Quoting AmadeusD
I got mine, Jack. (for now) Whatever others suffer is no skin off my ass.
So why bother to jump in here?
Hey. I think that it is clear where Amadeus is coming from.
Quoting AmadeusD
For him, there is no crisis. End of.
Well, not quite.
The description of 'most people' exaggerates and denigrates those expressing their views about the current, unfolding situation. Threads which include people with valid concerns, backed up by their own experience, knowledge and research. I note that this has stimulated some excellent exchanges from a variety of perspectives.
The thread I mentioned earlier (The Musk Plutocracy - @Wayfarer ) - with a recent post answering the question of activism and messaging:
Quoting BC
As before, I would add: Listen to what people are saying about their concerns and problems. Then, act to show you care and will support them, in real terms.
Grass roots intervention.
***
There is a lot to be learned from people who invest their time and energy analysing 'what is going on'. Who care to question, respond and explain.
I am far from being a political heavyweight. Indeed, I have acknowledged my ignorance and limitations previously.
I kept clear of the news for some time, ever since the US election.
However, what is happening now can't be ignored or denied.
My recent threads have been exploratory, as far as I am able, with help and contributions from others.
I expect that most, like me, have other personal matters and interests which take up their time and energy. Nevertheless, it is valuable to talk and listen to shared concerns. We don't always have the place or space.
Thanks and best wishes to all. Take care :sparkle: :flower:
I look at the news every day, but I think it was Emerson -- might have been Thoreau -- who said that reading a newspaper once a month was sufficient. Times have changed so maybe catching up on the news once a week is enough.
I find that a lot of the news that the New York Times sees fit to print is not all that useful. Outrage here, stocks up there, self-obsessed Hollywood remains self-obsessed, war goes badly, the poor getting poorer in lock step with the rich getting richer, etc. Too many zebras to keep track of.
I find the occasional, casual dip into You Tube more informative.
Bonus: if it's too upsetting, you can always switch to Bibi the monkey.
You think so... Feel free. It's as bad as Twitter, most of the time. Sure, some great points get made. Generally, not by the posters you are thinking of.
This all said, it is patently clear you take a certain view here, which is decidedly political, and are not quite open to discussions of disagreement. That's also fine, but I prefer not to operate that way. Most people in those threads behave the way i described. Evidenced by their own panicked responses to trivial comments, throughout. Again, that's fine. Not how I would operate, as it doesn't seem to cohere with reality (on my view).
Quoting Amity
I do the former. The latter is then not possible. Quoting Amity
Generally, not. The majority of these people are diving into a pool of their own creation, and are rarely providing anything by way of novel or interesting insights. Generally, this only happens when one changes 'camps' as it were (which si not always good, granted. Perhaps, in the main, not good. Context matters for that one). Quoting Amity
Well, it can, in the terms presented hereabouts. There's something going on, that's for sure, and I've not suggested otherwise. But claims like this are Kafka traps. Either I agree with you, or i'm ignorant and 'of course you'd say that'. It's not a good faith approach. The fact is, it can be framed completely differently form the panicked, self-referential crap that is bandied about in this forum (and that is simply my view. Not 'the truth' as it seems to be interpreted as - I'm not even that smart, but I respond rather than react which I think is crucial). Analyzing what's going on does not need to always land on the same crash pad.
I can respect people's views, respect the effort their putting in as people, humans, thinkers - and still think the conclusions are batshit (though, that's probably only relevant to a few here - most are pretty switched on, just.. emotionally invested in a way that skews things).
Quoting Vera Mont
This is patently untrue. Unless you are also a wilfull troll. That would explain the disparate responses well too.
Quoting Vera Mont
There's a big blank space where you claim this. There always is.
Quoting Vera Mont
Quoting Vera Mont
Hehe.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yet, here you are. And there's nothing wrong with that, other than noting you've delved into something irrelevant over several hundred words. For what reason, I cannot tell, unless there's something in what I've said.
Quoting Vera Mont
And he was entirely right. The mistake you're intimating here is the exact one I've charged you with. Ironic, but not surprising.
Quoting Vera Mont
Right o. Take care.
People in general will make token gestures but likely won't organise, or otherwise do what is necessary, to change things.
That's the problem. People believe all kinds things they're told by a notorious liar, and then are dismayed when the outcome is different from the promise. Conversely, when the same notorious liar says exactly what he intends to do and then does it and it turns out exactly as the critics predicted, they look for someone other than the notorious liar to blame.
According to H. L. Mencken: