I began by saying, "Superficially socialism appears to be the antithesis of freedom and liberty, but further analysis shows that it affords quite a bit more freedom to the people than the currently standing system. The currently standing system is Now, yes, it does limit economic freedom, but so do pesky laws that demand that cars have seatbelts or safety standards and laws that prevent coal mining companies from killing its employees for trying to unionize (no such laws would be necessary in a socialist state). Like democracy, socialism is based on equality--capitalism is based on just the opposite. How can you be unequal yet still free? Friedman's ideas are based on equal social mobility, not status, not to mention that his arguments completely ignore the presence of human beings in an the economic system. We in America today (and many Europeans) experience socialism every day. The post office, the national park service, and the military are all effectively socialist in their being owned by and providing a service to the citizens. Surely you don't hate mail and the grand canyon and the military. As far as legislation is concerned, legislation to a great extent limits freedom, thats its purpose. It seems that Locke's social contracts aren't enough for citizens and thus the government must create new ones and enforce them, reducing our natural freedoms in favor of the securities of society.
I guess I got a little off topic. Hopefully this will be good, some of his ideas about language clash with postmodernism, but I do enjoy his writings regardless."
To which my opponent replied, "Here are a few premises that I want you to keep in mind (or refute, if you care to and can).
- Man does not survive in stasis.
- A man is an individual, sentient and conscious unto himself.
- Production is the result of man's effort.
- Freedom is the condition of being free: that is, having the ability to choose every aspect of one's circumstance within one's means.
- The ultimate choice (choice to which all other fundamental choices can be boiled down) is: to continue to live, or to die.
- Slavery is the condition of not being free: that is, having less than full control over one's circumstances, even within his theoretical means.
So now let's look at these two opposing political philosophies: capitalism versus socialism.
The undergirding philosophical position of capitalism is that man is free. To unpack this a bit: man, who does not survive in stasis and therefore must work in order to guarantee his own survival, and who is an individual that is sentient (aware of himself) and conscious (aware of his surroundings) unto himself (meaning that his awareness is only accessible and useful to him, until he chooses to communicate his observations), is free, meaning that he has the ability to make those choices which impact his survival -- more or less, all of them -- to the extent that he is able, as a sovereign individual. Consider all this from something of an "economic" perspective (albeit a necessarily simplified one). A man wakes up in the morning and feels hunger. Here, a free man has two options: eat, or do not eat. If he should choose to eat, he must somehow produce food. As a free man, he then gets the product of his effort in the form of something he can consume, as he chose to in the first place. Now let's complicate things a bit, and add multiple players into the equation, as the nature of transaction is really where capitalism and socialism are most clearly shown to be diametrically opposed. This free man of ours decides that the avenue of production most appealing to him is to work for another man as, say, a courier. The first free man approaches the second, interested in this job. He propositions this other free man, who -- as a free man -- can either hire the first free man on the terms he offered, make a counter-offer, or reject the first free man altogether. Two things have happened here. One: the first free man has exercised his right (as a free man, an individual) to seek out a means of production that suits him. Two: the second free man has exercised his right (free man again) to negotiate, accept, or decline a business transaction based entirely on whatever criteria he might employ in order to tender a bargain. If he does not need a courier, he is not obligated to hire one; if he does need a courier but the first man asks for too much (or too little?) in return, he has the freedom to make whatever counter-offer he feels is reasonable; if he needs a courier and both parties are able to reach a mutually-beneficial agreement, they have conducted a transaction as two free men in a purely capitalistic fashion. That is the essense of freedom in a rudimentary economic sense.
Socialism, on the other hand, chains men together with the philosophical proposition that men are in fact not free at all, but slaves to one another. Once again, to unpack this: men, who do not survive in stasis, but must produce in order to consume in order to survive, are not free, to the extent that they cannot make their own decisions as their survival is concerned, but slaves to one another insofar as the individual is, by default, in the service of everyone around him but himself. Consider again the man, and his transactive intentions with an employer. The first man goes to the business owner and asks for work as a courier. In a capitalistic society, that business owner has the option to accept, decline, or counter the first man's offer. In a socialist society, that business owner may very well be forced, by law, to accept the first man's offer. That business owner may very well be forced to pay the first man more money than the business man deems the job to be worth (minimum wage), may be forced to hire an unqualified (or not hire a qualified) first man because of the color of his skin, or his economic status. The businessman is the slave to the first man.
And that is only one aspect of it: consider the logical extension of these premises in terms of the interaction between you and those around you with whom you do not directly do business. The capitalist wakes up in the morning and is hungry, so he goes out, works, produces, earns, and consumes. The capitalist's neighbor has a choice: he can either go out, work, produce, earn, and consume, or: do not work. Of course he knows (as he accepts the premise that man cannot survive in stasis) that if he does not work, he may very well not eat. In a capitalist society, his survival is dependant on his ability, and his willingness to motivate that ability. In other words, if he chooses not to work, he is choosing directly not to survive. This is simply the logical conclusion of the premises that (1) one must consume to survive, and (2) consumption is the beneficial result of work.
But the socialist does not understand this. The socialist wakes up in the morning and is hungry. But he lacks the ability to provide himself with the lifestyle he thinks he deserves. This could be for any number of reasons: his parents may have not been wealthy, so he may not have inherited a fortune. He may be uneducated, and lack the impetus, interest, or capability to educate himself. He may be injured in such a way as to impede his range of motion. He may simply be lazy. In any case -- it does not matter what reason happens to apply -- he feels as though he deserves more than he will work to earn. Fortunately for him, there are people out there who do have the wealth to which he thinks he is entitled. There are those who have inherited it. There are those who are extraordinarily gifted in one field or another, and whose intellectual ability they have converted to masses of wealth. There are those who have a vested interest in a high standard of living, so they simply choose to work hard -- but in a socialist state, none of that matters. Intellectual ability, family prosperity, dedication and hard work: these guarantee wealth, sure, but not to he who possesses the attribute -- they guarantee the wealth to the first man, who cannot or will not earn it by his own means. This is the essense of "wealth redistribution" -- everyone gets an equal piece of the pie, for putting in inequal shares of effort. He who contributes little lives on the prosperity of he who contributes much; that which the prosperous man generates is taken from him by the not-so-prosperous; the prosperous man must apply his superior knowledge, his superior ability, to his field of work and in return he sees the fruits of his effort distributed to the oafs and sluggards around him, regardless of what those oafs and sluggards have done to earn their own survival. The scientist thus is the janitor's slave. The architect is the roofer's slave. The man that invents and engineers machines, is slave to the man that pulls a robotic arm without thought or interest.
Is that what you call "equality" and fair?
There are those of us who would rather die free than live enslaved."
I am currently preparing my response, ill get back to it later
May 16, 2007
March 7, 2007
You wanna talk about "latent homosexuality"?
Coulter gets enough press, but I feel justified in adding more to the pile of negative attention since she's such a moron. My premise: a conversation she had on some talkshow where she said that Bill Clinton's predisposition to call 'anything in a skirt sexy' showed some 'latent homosexuality'.
My second premise: since Coulter was invited to speak for the CPAC (the largest 'outside government' republican group) and she assented she in some what must answer for her fellow party members.
The predisposition to which Ann refers is likely to be similar to that of The Todd in Scrubs, where his heterosexuality (until season five-ish) is so overt and exagerrated that it borders on homophobia, which is Freudian defense-mechanism-speak for 'latent homosexuality', which I can understand. Ann need look no further than her own party lines. The one who is affectionately known as Pastor Ted, who solicited sexual favours from a gay escort dude, had a regular conference call with his protegé, George Bush. Not long after, another Evangelic priest was discharged for the same thing. How many of the Catholic Right have forgotten the priest scandals of only a few years ago? This is latent homosexuality if ever there were such a thing.
And now we have Coulter calling Edwards a faggot on national television. This kind of hostile insecurity (a 'schoolyard taunt', she would later call it) is more likely a sign of homophobia, a pre-expressive phase of homosexuality. Her humour is sophomoric, as what's his face said during her interview with FOX News (surprise!).
Coulter is convinced that because she and her 'base' have withstood these kind of things before she will hold up to them in the future, but has she never heard of the straw that break the camel's back? People who think George Bush is in the same boat should see his approval ratings or, failing that, the midterm elections of 2006. Coulter cannot keep this up, and I hope this expresses itself in 2008.
My second premise: since Coulter was invited to speak for the CPAC (the largest 'outside government' republican group) and she assented she in some what must answer for her fellow party members.
The predisposition to which Ann refers is likely to be similar to that of The Todd in Scrubs, where his heterosexuality (until season five-ish) is so overt and exagerrated that it borders on homophobia, which is Freudian defense-mechanism-speak for 'latent homosexuality', which I can understand. Ann need look no further than her own party lines. The one who is affectionately known as Pastor Ted, who solicited sexual favours from a gay escort dude, had a regular conference call with his protegé, George Bush. Not long after, another Evangelic priest was discharged for the same thing. How many of the Catholic Right have forgotten the priest scandals of only a few years ago? This is latent homosexuality if ever there were such a thing.
And now we have Coulter calling Edwards a faggot on national television. This kind of hostile insecurity (a 'schoolyard taunt', she would later call it) is more likely a sign of homophobia, a pre-expressive phase of homosexuality. Her humour is sophomoric, as what's his face said during her interview with FOX News (surprise!).
Coulter is convinced that because she and her 'base' have withstood these kind of things before she will hold up to them in the future, but has she never heard of the straw that break the camel's back? People who think George Bush is in the same boat should see his approval ratings or, failing that, the midterm elections of 2006. Coulter cannot keep this up, and I hope this expresses itself in 2008.
March 1, 2007
Prostitution, Patriarchy and Capitalism
At first glance capitalism today seems to be a rampantly patriarchal institution. In the United States prostitution dominates sexuality and damns women to lives of shame and horrible abuse. Women are forced to have sex for survival and are alienated from society. Globalization creates problems in nearly every corner of the earth. On top of a callous disregard for the environment, it has created horrible economic imbalances in third world countries. All this appears to be conducted in the spirit of collecting the most capital. Analysis, however, reveals a structure of patriarchy supporting and encouraging the mistreatment of millions of humans, using capitalism merely as another tool of exploitation.
When Emma Goldman wrote her essays on the connection between patriarchy and capitalism, the state of American society and economy was very different than today. Chief among these short pieces is “The Traffic in Women.” Writing in 1917, Goldman was witness to a society that was the cause of gross oppression to women. Over the following decades the maturation of society and the consequential economic changes have moved to decrease prostitution and encourage social equality in America. Prevailing patriarchal attitudes toward women and globalization, however, have fought to resist these improvements for women.
Today, patriarchy and capitalism still stand together. Jean Enriquez explores this mistreatment of women for money in “Globalization, Militarism and Sex Trafficking.” Her essay draws striking parallels to Goldman’s from eighty-nine years earlier. Both authors recognize that sex dominates society, and agree that a great number of men visit prostitutes frequently. Goldman openly states that upwards of one half of married men visit prostitutes, while financial data from Enriquez suggests a lower figure for most countries. She says that modernization has done little to curtail the spread of prostitution, insisting that quite the opposite has happened, as global trade has been bent to ease the sale of women.
Prostitution is an enormously profitable industry. Yet, despite the large flow of money, most women can barely afford to stay alive. According to Enriquez, most women involved in sex trafficking do not continue to do so by choice. They are forced to submit themselves, to take drugs, to be mutilated and are prevented from leaving. She notes that it is the pimps or managers or owners who benefit from the system. Yet, mistreatment and financial exploitation is just the beginning. The women are held with such low regard that they are effectively excluded from society. Their work effectively stripes them of their humanity and considers them a machine for sexual pleasure. A prostitute represents the ultimate example of objectifying women. Despite being so downtrodden, they are made to believe that their sexual exploits are empowering. Enriquez notes the paradox of being downtrodden yet empowered for a single action in her essay. This double standard is only the beginning of a justification made for continued prostitution.
In addition to being mistreated in nearly every way possible, the very nature of prostitution is destructive the women involved. Since these women are forced into their sexual encounters and submit for an ultimate means that is not pleasure or love or reproduction or any reasonable ends to result from intercourse, they are alienated from sex. As Marx notes in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, performing any labor to satisfy an external means disconnects the laborer from the process and products of the labor. The act of submitting to a man for sex is, to these women, thus a method purely for survival, devoid of any pleasure. Clearly, a sexual experience should not lack pleasure, nor should it satisfy any means external to itself. Perhaps even more criminally than their treatment, women in prostitution are stripped of the ability and desire to have meaningful sexual relationships.
It would seem that no modern society with any regard for humans or a sense of right and wrong would stand for such horrible mistreatment. But prostitution runs rampant in modern times. And why is this? Men, in short. More accurately, it is the views perpetuated by patriarchy in society that justify prostitution. Women are cast aside and it is assumed they chose their fate, or their torment is overlooked and masked with rhetoric. Goldman notes that no little girl dreams to grow up to be a prostitute. While she may have been writing some time ago, it is clear that this is true still today. Quite understandably, no little girl desires a life of torture and exploitation (nor does any human for that matter). According to Goldman, no woman chooses such a fate, but is rather forced into it by prevailing economic factors and societal predispositions. On page 179 she observes, “The economic and social inferiority of women is responsible for prostitution.” She concludes later that this economic inequality is caused by underlying social inequality. Primarily, it is perceived inferiority to men that keeps women from getting jobs that allow them to be self sufficient that forces women to prostitution.
Coupling prostitution’s persistence prior to capitalism with Goldman’s conclusions that society is at fault leads to the conclusion that capitalism does not cause prostitution. If capitalism is not the cause of prostitution, can it be blamed for the current state of prostitution? Using Goldman’s essays as a benchmark to which modern prostitution data and capitalism are compared, one can conclude only that continued patriarchy is the cause for the resilience of prostitution. Capitalism plays an important role only in the spread and popularization of the sex trade abroad. More specifically, it is efforts to encourage free trade and globalization that force women into lives of prostitution.
Social movements since Goldman’s essays have progressed feminism and discouraged prostitution in America. In 1917 women were unable to vote legally, unable to have a self supporting career and less educated than men. The Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote when it was ratified in 1920. This amendment, unlike previous amendments granting rights to non-white-men, was not sidestepped to deny women the right to vote. Following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, women were (on paper) equal to men in the eyes of the government. Women are now able to hold better careers than in Goldman’s times. More importantly, women are able to be self sufficient and are able to distance themselves from dependence on men as a means of survival. As for education, recent figures suggest that women have a higher rate of enrollment in colleges than men. Among hundreds of other changes since Goldman, these three illustrate the drastic changes in women’s status over the past ninety years.
With great legal movements and trends in education and society in general women are very nearly equal to men in America. Salaries for women are very similar to those of men in the same job. Some jobs now show a distribution in favor of women. According to the National Science Foundation, differences between salaries for men and women in engineering are separated by negligible differences when compared correctly (Carlson). Representation of women in the federal government is greatly improved and ever increasing too. Society’s views toward women in politics have improved greatly with time. According to a USA Today/Gallup Poll, 92% of Americans would vote for a woman running for president. A poll conducted in 1937 revealed that a mere 33% of Americans would vote for a female commander in chief (Poll Reports). This is not to say that all women are universally regarded as being equal, but merely to make the point that women are in general regarded as political and economic equals to men in modern American Society.
Considering that women are for the most part equal to men economically, there surely must be little motivation for prostitution. This is clearly not the case. The reasons for prostitution have changed since Goldman composed “The Traffic in Women.” Goldman blames economic oppression and inequality woman turning to prostitution. While these reasons may be relevant today, there exists economic potential for women not present in 1917. Instead, most prostitutes today are stranded by their childhood experiences. Enriquez does not mention economic factors in her explaining the reasons for women entering into prostitution. Figures suggest that as many as 95% of prostitutes are victims of childhood sexual abuse. This mistreatment is often regarded to play a role in driving a woman to sell herself. “I am convinced on a daily basis that women’s engagement in prostitution are linked to their experiences of incestuous rape…to cultural pressures to be sexually available to men,” notes Enriquez on page three Childhood sexual abuse is without a doubt a result of male stereotypes perpetuated by patriarchy. Even though the reasons for entering into the sex trade having changed, the horrible situations endured have not.
Equality created in social movements of the twentieth century represents only economic and political equality. It is still expected in America that men are to be physically superior to women. Enriquez distills a disturbing truth about society’s expecting men to desire prostitution. She says, “It is about definitions of masculinity where men are given unbridled access and unquestioned ownership to women’s bodies. It is about myths of men’s uncontrollable urge and right to buy or rape women whenever they feel the urge. So even when there is no cash involved as in prostitution, there is rape”(3). If men and women were equal in all respects (as statistics suggest) men would not perceive a right to a woman’s body. Goldman too realizes this perceived and even encouraged superiority. She notes that men are expected to engage in many sexual experiences, while women confined to “celibacy or prostitution,” that is belonging to one or being shared by all. Thus, it is this assumed sexual dominance that has historically justified and continues to justify prostitution.
As noted earlier, no woman becomes or continues to be a prostitute by true free will. They are forced into dire situations by economic constraints or societal pressures. Today, statistics suggest that child abuse plays a very large role in women turning to prostitution. Patriarchy is responsible for the sexual abuse of adolescents. Enriquez notes that women are also indoctrinated with the idea that allowing men access their bodies is empowering—another character of patriarchy. Thus, it is patriarchy that teaches that sexual exploitation is acceptable. Additionally, prevailing gender roles that justify men “needing” prostitutes. They are convinced that their sexual desires cannot be conquered by will alone and must be satisfied. By these two mechanisms, patriarchy provides the means and the motivation for rape to exist. Rape exists without capitalism, the addition of money merely changes its name to prostitution.
The exchange of money for sex exists external to the girl involved. According to Milton Friedman, exchanging money for goods or services implies consent and therefore choice among both parties. From that one may conclude that the women willingly agree to engage in sexual activity for money. But, they do not agree to do so, but rather are forced to accept money. According to Enriquez, most of the money goes to the pimps or managers. The Factbook on Global Sexual Exploitation provided by the University of Rhode Island offers disturbing insight regarding the relationship of pimps and prostitutes. In short, these women are forced by means of beating, psychological abuse and torture to pay their managers. When a woman accepts money in exchange for sex it is not for the sex that she receives the money, it is for safety from her pimp. There is no consent to sex in this process, only a desire for safety. The abuse of women by the pimps is clearly a patriarchal tendency. Turning again to the gender roles perpetuated by society, the pimp sees himself as dominant to the girls. In tern, he abuses and exploits them as he sees fit.
Even without a pimp, the woman does not fully consent to intercourse. When a woman relies on prostitution for survival she is forced to choose exploitation over death. In this way, prostitution is rape. If a man threatens a woman at gunpoint for sex the act is called rape. Yet, if a man gives the woman money it is called prostitution. Both are the same in that survival is the woman’s goal. Money merely happens to be the means of survival. A patriarchal society, even without personal property will have rape and prostitution. Prostitution exists solely as a product as patriarchy. Modern patriarchy creates the perceived need for prostitutes and forces women into prostitution. The woman does not engage in consensual sex and the process is thus not in the spirit of capitalism according to Milton Friedman. Even in the absence of a pimp women selling themselves is not an economic matter. Money is merely used as a means of survival, and sex as the tool to acquire money.
Movements toward foreign prostitution appear to be a trend motivated by economics. It is much cheaper to have sex with a woman from a country with a weak economy. Relaxed prostitution laws and uninformed child protection laws make it easier for men to hire as many women as they want. Enriquez explores foreign institutions of prostitution, finding that 4.4% of Korea’s economy comes from the sex trade. Sex tourism has recently become a popular, albeit underground, vacation for middle aged single men. German officials worry about prostitution shortages during World Cup events. It seems that prostitution is expanding and being popularized everywhere on earth.
Foreign success and profits in prostitution stem from society and globalization. Social movements in America have fought to discourage prostitution. Feminism taught society that women and men are equal, and made major steps in lessening economic factors that contribute to prostitution. Globalization has replicated throughout the third world the economic situations that drove women into prostitution in early twentieth century America. Goldman’s analysis of prostitution is thus applicable to many third world countries with factory based economies. Women are forced to be exploited in a factory, to sell their bodies or to starve. In countries like Thailand and the Philippines it is economically favorable to work as a prostitute than to work eighteen hour days in factories owned by multinational conglomerates. It is quite difficult to imagine a fate worse than prostitution, but working days on end in unsafe conditions, without sleep, for barely enough money to survive does come awfully close. Between existing patriarchal societies and economic situations imposed by globalization women are faced with more pressure for prostitution than in contemporary America.
Competition plays an important factor in the spread of foreign prostitution. According to Enriquez, it, “creates the pressure to ‘import’ younger and younger women from more ‘exotic’ backgrounds” (4). This demand does not come from the industry itself, but its customers. If one assumes that the market for women is not artificially stimulated then it can be concluded that there exists a genuine demand. The desire for “exotic” women stems from patriarchal predispositions. Friedman would attribute the popularity of the system not to the potential profits but to those who the industry attracts. In other words, profits develop as a response to demand. Capitalism thus merely reflects the desires of those who participate in it. While this may be a slightly optimistic view, it is safe to say that a market for prostitutes is not manipulated in the same manner that dominates the diamond market (that is to say there is a connection between those who purchase prostitutes and the institution itself). Because capitalism is merely adjusting with the will of the customer, it is those who use the prostitutes who are to blame for its spread.
Globalization aside, it is clearly patriarchal society that is responsible for prostitution’s spread in third world countries. Korea makes a great deal of money from the sex industry because its government fails to enforce its own laws. While the country does make a great deal of profit from allowing prostitution run rampant, it is the lack of regard for women’s rights that truly justifies the nation’s overlooking sex work. Any helping its citizens rather than attempting to profit is a good example of this. Today, the United States government spends billions of dollars each year to assist those who survive natural disasters. Prostitutes, like those in disaster zones, are virtually defenseless and lack the resources to improve their situation. Caring for the victims of a hurricane yields the same benefit to government and society as helping prostitutes escape their lives of torture. It is because of men not desire for wealth that these societies perceive a right to women’s bodies that they allow prostitution to continue. The mechanism is exactly the same as that which justifies the American sex trade.
Universally, patriarchy responsible for prostitution. Through gender roles reinforced by society men are convinced they have a right to a woman’s body. This, coupled with associated assumptions of female gender roles, creates a potential for rape. Merely placing money in the system renames rape prostitution. Because rape and by extension prostitution have nothing to do with economic superiority or growth it can be safely assumed that prostitution is not encouraged by capitalism alone. Capitalism plays a roll in encouraging such horrible treatment of women only through globalization in third world countries. Even then, it ultimately is patriarchy that takes advantage of the situation that women are forced into. While capitalism does manifest itself in other patriarchal ways, it finds little role in the core of prostitution. The abolishment of this harsh economic system will not bring female equality, since it certainly will not end prostitution and rape. Only through fighting against patriarchy can such abominations be ended.
When Emma Goldman wrote her essays on the connection between patriarchy and capitalism, the state of American society and economy was very different than today. Chief among these short pieces is “The Traffic in Women.” Writing in 1917, Goldman was witness to a society that was the cause of gross oppression to women. Over the following decades the maturation of society and the consequential economic changes have moved to decrease prostitution and encourage social equality in America. Prevailing patriarchal attitudes toward women and globalization, however, have fought to resist these improvements for women.
Today, patriarchy and capitalism still stand together. Jean Enriquez explores this mistreatment of women for money in “Globalization, Militarism and Sex Trafficking.” Her essay draws striking parallels to Goldman’s from eighty-nine years earlier. Both authors recognize that sex dominates society, and agree that a great number of men visit prostitutes frequently. Goldman openly states that upwards of one half of married men visit prostitutes, while financial data from Enriquez suggests a lower figure for most countries. She says that modernization has done little to curtail the spread of prostitution, insisting that quite the opposite has happened, as global trade has been bent to ease the sale of women.
Prostitution is an enormously profitable industry. Yet, despite the large flow of money, most women can barely afford to stay alive. According to Enriquez, most women involved in sex trafficking do not continue to do so by choice. They are forced to submit themselves, to take drugs, to be mutilated and are prevented from leaving. She notes that it is the pimps or managers or owners who benefit from the system. Yet, mistreatment and financial exploitation is just the beginning. The women are held with such low regard that they are effectively excluded from society. Their work effectively stripes them of their humanity and considers them a machine for sexual pleasure. A prostitute represents the ultimate example of objectifying women. Despite being so downtrodden, they are made to believe that their sexual exploits are empowering. Enriquez notes the paradox of being downtrodden yet empowered for a single action in her essay. This double standard is only the beginning of a justification made for continued prostitution.
In addition to being mistreated in nearly every way possible, the very nature of prostitution is destructive the women involved. Since these women are forced into their sexual encounters and submit for an ultimate means that is not pleasure or love or reproduction or any reasonable ends to result from intercourse, they are alienated from sex. As Marx notes in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, performing any labor to satisfy an external means disconnects the laborer from the process and products of the labor. The act of submitting to a man for sex is, to these women, thus a method purely for survival, devoid of any pleasure. Clearly, a sexual experience should not lack pleasure, nor should it satisfy any means external to itself. Perhaps even more criminally than their treatment, women in prostitution are stripped of the ability and desire to have meaningful sexual relationships.
It would seem that no modern society with any regard for humans or a sense of right and wrong would stand for such horrible mistreatment. But prostitution runs rampant in modern times. And why is this? Men, in short. More accurately, it is the views perpetuated by patriarchy in society that justify prostitution. Women are cast aside and it is assumed they chose their fate, or their torment is overlooked and masked with rhetoric. Goldman notes that no little girl dreams to grow up to be a prostitute. While she may have been writing some time ago, it is clear that this is true still today. Quite understandably, no little girl desires a life of torture and exploitation (nor does any human for that matter). According to Goldman, no woman chooses such a fate, but is rather forced into it by prevailing economic factors and societal predispositions. On page 179 she observes, “The economic and social inferiority of women is responsible for prostitution.” She concludes later that this economic inequality is caused by underlying social inequality. Primarily, it is perceived inferiority to men that keeps women from getting jobs that allow them to be self sufficient that forces women to prostitution.
Coupling prostitution’s persistence prior to capitalism with Goldman’s conclusions that society is at fault leads to the conclusion that capitalism does not cause prostitution. If capitalism is not the cause of prostitution, can it be blamed for the current state of prostitution? Using Goldman’s essays as a benchmark to which modern prostitution data and capitalism are compared, one can conclude only that continued patriarchy is the cause for the resilience of prostitution. Capitalism plays an important role only in the spread and popularization of the sex trade abroad. More specifically, it is efforts to encourage free trade and globalization that force women into lives of prostitution.
Social movements since Goldman’s essays have progressed feminism and discouraged prostitution in America. In 1917 women were unable to vote legally, unable to have a self supporting career and less educated than men. The Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote when it was ratified in 1920. This amendment, unlike previous amendments granting rights to non-white-men, was not sidestepped to deny women the right to vote. Following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, women were (on paper) equal to men in the eyes of the government. Women are now able to hold better careers than in Goldman’s times. More importantly, women are able to be self sufficient and are able to distance themselves from dependence on men as a means of survival. As for education, recent figures suggest that women have a higher rate of enrollment in colleges than men. Among hundreds of other changes since Goldman, these three illustrate the drastic changes in women’s status over the past ninety years.
With great legal movements and trends in education and society in general women are very nearly equal to men in America. Salaries for women are very similar to those of men in the same job. Some jobs now show a distribution in favor of women. According to the National Science Foundation, differences between salaries for men and women in engineering are separated by negligible differences when compared correctly (Carlson). Representation of women in the federal government is greatly improved and ever increasing too. Society’s views toward women in politics have improved greatly with time. According to a USA Today/Gallup Poll, 92% of Americans would vote for a woman running for president. A poll conducted in 1937 revealed that a mere 33% of Americans would vote for a female commander in chief (Poll Reports). This is not to say that all women are universally regarded as being equal, but merely to make the point that women are in general regarded as political and economic equals to men in modern American Society.
Considering that women are for the most part equal to men economically, there surely must be little motivation for prostitution. This is clearly not the case. The reasons for prostitution have changed since Goldman composed “The Traffic in Women.” Goldman blames economic oppression and inequality woman turning to prostitution. While these reasons may be relevant today, there exists economic potential for women not present in 1917. Instead, most prostitutes today are stranded by their childhood experiences. Enriquez does not mention economic factors in her explaining the reasons for women entering into prostitution. Figures suggest that as many as 95% of prostitutes are victims of childhood sexual abuse. This mistreatment is often regarded to play a role in driving a woman to sell herself. “I am convinced on a daily basis that women’s engagement in prostitution are linked to their experiences of incestuous rape…to cultural pressures to be sexually available to men,” notes Enriquez on page three Childhood sexual abuse is without a doubt a result of male stereotypes perpetuated by patriarchy. Even though the reasons for entering into the sex trade having changed, the horrible situations endured have not.
Equality created in social movements of the twentieth century represents only economic and political equality. It is still expected in America that men are to be physically superior to women. Enriquez distills a disturbing truth about society’s expecting men to desire prostitution. She says, “It is about definitions of masculinity where men are given unbridled access and unquestioned ownership to women’s bodies. It is about myths of men’s uncontrollable urge and right to buy or rape women whenever they feel the urge. So even when there is no cash involved as in prostitution, there is rape”(3). If men and women were equal in all respects (as statistics suggest) men would not perceive a right to a woman’s body. Goldman too realizes this perceived and even encouraged superiority. She notes that men are expected to engage in many sexual experiences, while women confined to “celibacy or prostitution,” that is belonging to one or being shared by all. Thus, it is this assumed sexual dominance that has historically justified and continues to justify prostitution.
As noted earlier, no woman becomes or continues to be a prostitute by true free will. They are forced into dire situations by economic constraints or societal pressures. Today, statistics suggest that child abuse plays a very large role in women turning to prostitution. Patriarchy is responsible for the sexual abuse of adolescents. Enriquez notes that women are also indoctrinated with the idea that allowing men access their bodies is empowering—another character of patriarchy. Thus, it is patriarchy that teaches that sexual exploitation is acceptable. Additionally, prevailing gender roles that justify men “needing” prostitutes. They are convinced that their sexual desires cannot be conquered by will alone and must be satisfied. By these two mechanisms, patriarchy provides the means and the motivation for rape to exist. Rape exists without capitalism, the addition of money merely changes its name to prostitution.
The exchange of money for sex exists external to the girl involved. According to Milton Friedman, exchanging money for goods or services implies consent and therefore choice among both parties. From that one may conclude that the women willingly agree to engage in sexual activity for money. But, they do not agree to do so, but rather are forced to accept money. According to Enriquez, most of the money goes to the pimps or managers. The Factbook on Global Sexual Exploitation provided by the University of Rhode Island offers disturbing insight regarding the relationship of pimps and prostitutes. In short, these women are forced by means of beating, psychological abuse and torture to pay their managers. When a woman accepts money in exchange for sex it is not for the sex that she receives the money, it is for safety from her pimp. There is no consent to sex in this process, only a desire for safety. The abuse of women by the pimps is clearly a patriarchal tendency. Turning again to the gender roles perpetuated by society, the pimp sees himself as dominant to the girls. In tern, he abuses and exploits them as he sees fit.
Even without a pimp, the woman does not fully consent to intercourse. When a woman relies on prostitution for survival she is forced to choose exploitation over death. In this way, prostitution is rape. If a man threatens a woman at gunpoint for sex the act is called rape. Yet, if a man gives the woman money it is called prostitution. Both are the same in that survival is the woman’s goal. Money merely happens to be the means of survival. A patriarchal society, even without personal property will have rape and prostitution. Prostitution exists solely as a product as patriarchy. Modern patriarchy creates the perceived need for prostitutes and forces women into prostitution. The woman does not engage in consensual sex and the process is thus not in the spirit of capitalism according to Milton Friedman. Even in the absence of a pimp women selling themselves is not an economic matter. Money is merely used as a means of survival, and sex as the tool to acquire money.
Movements toward foreign prostitution appear to be a trend motivated by economics. It is much cheaper to have sex with a woman from a country with a weak economy. Relaxed prostitution laws and uninformed child protection laws make it easier for men to hire as many women as they want. Enriquez explores foreign institutions of prostitution, finding that 4.4% of Korea’s economy comes from the sex trade. Sex tourism has recently become a popular, albeit underground, vacation for middle aged single men. German officials worry about prostitution shortages during World Cup events. It seems that prostitution is expanding and being popularized everywhere on earth.
Foreign success and profits in prostitution stem from society and globalization. Social movements in America have fought to discourage prostitution. Feminism taught society that women and men are equal, and made major steps in lessening economic factors that contribute to prostitution. Globalization has replicated throughout the third world the economic situations that drove women into prostitution in early twentieth century America. Goldman’s analysis of prostitution is thus applicable to many third world countries with factory based economies. Women are forced to be exploited in a factory, to sell their bodies or to starve. In countries like Thailand and the Philippines it is economically favorable to work as a prostitute than to work eighteen hour days in factories owned by multinational conglomerates. It is quite difficult to imagine a fate worse than prostitution, but working days on end in unsafe conditions, without sleep, for barely enough money to survive does come awfully close. Between existing patriarchal societies and economic situations imposed by globalization women are faced with more pressure for prostitution than in contemporary America.
Competition plays an important factor in the spread of foreign prostitution. According to Enriquez, it, “creates the pressure to ‘import’ younger and younger women from more ‘exotic’ backgrounds” (4). This demand does not come from the industry itself, but its customers. If one assumes that the market for women is not artificially stimulated then it can be concluded that there exists a genuine demand. The desire for “exotic” women stems from patriarchal predispositions. Friedman would attribute the popularity of the system not to the potential profits but to those who the industry attracts. In other words, profits develop as a response to demand. Capitalism thus merely reflects the desires of those who participate in it. While this may be a slightly optimistic view, it is safe to say that a market for prostitutes is not manipulated in the same manner that dominates the diamond market (that is to say there is a connection between those who purchase prostitutes and the institution itself). Because capitalism is merely adjusting with the will of the customer, it is those who use the prostitutes who are to blame for its spread.
Globalization aside, it is clearly patriarchal society that is responsible for prostitution’s spread in third world countries. Korea makes a great deal of money from the sex industry because its government fails to enforce its own laws. While the country does make a great deal of profit from allowing prostitution run rampant, it is the lack of regard for women’s rights that truly justifies the nation’s overlooking sex work. Any helping its citizens rather than attempting to profit is a good example of this. Today, the United States government spends billions of dollars each year to assist those who survive natural disasters. Prostitutes, like those in disaster zones, are virtually defenseless and lack the resources to improve their situation. Caring for the victims of a hurricane yields the same benefit to government and society as helping prostitutes escape their lives of torture. It is because of men not desire for wealth that these societies perceive a right to women’s bodies that they allow prostitution to continue. The mechanism is exactly the same as that which justifies the American sex trade.
Universally, patriarchy responsible for prostitution. Through gender roles reinforced by society men are convinced they have a right to a woman’s body. This, coupled with associated assumptions of female gender roles, creates a potential for rape. Merely placing money in the system renames rape prostitution. Because rape and by extension prostitution have nothing to do with economic superiority or growth it can be safely assumed that prostitution is not encouraged by capitalism alone. Capitalism plays a roll in encouraging such horrible treatment of women only through globalization in third world countries. Even then, it ultimately is patriarchy that takes advantage of the situation that women are forced into. While capitalism does manifest itself in other patriarchal ways, it finds little role in the core of prostitution. The abolishment of this harsh economic system will not bring female equality, since it certainly will not end prostitution and rape. Only through fighting against patriarchy can such abominations be ended.
February 7, 2007
General Knowledge
It seems like there is no longer any respect for what I would call general knowledge anymore. Certainly no one memorizes anything - that's what mobiles and Google are for - but really, there are a few things that we ought to know at all times. Scholars used to be responsible for many, many languages: Greek, Latin, French, German and English, to name a few. Nowadays, of course, no Asian language would be a poor move, either, since that part of the world is the strongest.
When I taught summer school, I was appalled to learn that none of my students knew the following dates: Caesar's invasion of Gaul, Constantine's embrace of Christianity, the fall of Rome, the Norman invasion, the signing of the Magna Carta, COLUMBUS'S landing in the Americas, Napoleon's defeat, the Civil War, and World Wars one and two. I mean, for Christ's sake, people. They, of course, aren't scholars. But they are people who have conversations, and these dates serve as benchmarks when navigating history. If you wish to know something about a Roman, it would be beneficial to know whether he lived under the Kings, the Republic, the Empire, or after the fall, all of which can be revealed to you immediately with the knowledge of his lifetime. If we take someone like Boethius, who lived c. 480-525, we understand immediately that his life must have been fraught with uncertainty, because the Visigoths razed Rome when he was only a teenager. We should all have this sort of ammunition, carried around with us at all times.
A professor I respect, almost above all others, told me about a time she tried to teach her freshmen students about mythology. They all replied, 'We did this in High School', but failed to answer even the simplest of questions: who was Persephone? who was Zeus? who were Thor and Odin? what are the Halls of Dys, and what have they to do with Demeter? We seem to study only to forget. How many of us learned those pesky verb endings for French or Spanish immediately before a quiz, and now we can't remember whether present tense of a first person -ir verb is -is or issis?
Some information is practically made for reference and not memorisation: does the Miller's Tale directly follow the Knight's Tale, or is the Franklin's Tale between them? I would not expect any non-English major to know this (nor would I expect to be held responsible for the shape of pi-bonds in an sp2 orbital), but everyone could do with remembering that Chaucer's pilgrims are headed to Canterbury to pay homage to Thomas Becket. Knowledge makes a lot of life easier, and it allows us to raise our conversations above the banal. It would make life like a class in which everyone has done his homework: we don't need to establish the base every time we approach a subject. If we're talking about Galileo, we should KNOW what Copernicus has already contributed and what Ptolemy has argued.
This is probably the biggest lamentation I have, is that the acquisition of knowledge is difficult, very difficult. It comes easier to some, but most of us have to work very hard to acquire it. For that reason, we tend to become lazy. We read 'A Christmas Carol' when we should have read 'David Copperfield'. We learn some French or Spanish when we should be learning Latin. We learn about Madrid's 'culture' when we should be reading 'Don Quixote'. Americans are the best when it comes to sidestepping actual work.
The problem, of course, is that we become ill-informed. We may never know how much America is hated if we only watch FOX news. We may never understand evolution if we don't try to learn what it really is. And we will be forever foreigners if we don't start learning some other languages -- we will even be foreigners in our own country soon if we do not know Spanish. Why do we stop the immigrants from coming into the US? Why do we try to censor the radio and TV, and ban video games? Make no mistake, it is laziness.
We don't want our cushy jobs taken and we don't want to have to learn aNOTHER language (one is enough, right?). We would hate to have to raise our children ourselves and actually teach them right from wrong ourselves, so we'll just make sure NO ONE can listen to eminem or play GTA. The fact is, many of us grow up with these things (myself included), and we listen to eminem and Dre and play GTA and Halo, and we still know right from wrong. My parents raised me, as many parents do, to know good from bad regardless of what I see or hear.
I want to make an argument against authoritative rule (raising your children kind of rule), something about how religion reinforces one's dependence on authority, and so those whose parents say (ridiculous) things like "my country, right or wrong" begin to stop questioning someone who, say, invades a country on totally false pretenses. But I don't feel like making that argument, though I feel it is accurate.
Lazy ass Americans. God forbid we have to earn our keep and compete with others.
When I taught summer school, I was appalled to learn that none of my students knew the following dates: Caesar's invasion of Gaul, Constantine's embrace of Christianity, the fall of Rome, the Norman invasion, the signing of the Magna Carta, COLUMBUS'S landing in the Americas, Napoleon's defeat, the Civil War, and World Wars one and two. I mean, for Christ's sake, people. They, of course, aren't scholars. But they are people who have conversations, and these dates serve as benchmarks when navigating history. If you wish to know something about a Roman, it would be beneficial to know whether he lived under the Kings, the Republic, the Empire, or after the fall, all of which can be revealed to you immediately with the knowledge of his lifetime. If we take someone like Boethius, who lived c. 480-525, we understand immediately that his life must have been fraught with uncertainty, because the Visigoths razed Rome when he was only a teenager. We should all have this sort of ammunition, carried around with us at all times.
A professor I respect, almost above all others, told me about a time she tried to teach her freshmen students about mythology. They all replied, 'We did this in High School', but failed to answer even the simplest of questions: who was Persephone? who was Zeus? who were Thor and Odin? what are the Halls of Dys, and what have they to do with Demeter? We seem to study only to forget. How many of us learned those pesky verb endings for French or Spanish immediately before a quiz, and now we can't remember whether present tense of a first person -ir verb is -is or issis?
Some information is practically made for reference and not memorisation: does the Miller's Tale directly follow the Knight's Tale, or is the Franklin's Tale between them? I would not expect any non-English major to know this (nor would I expect to be held responsible for the shape of pi-bonds in an sp2 orbital), but everyone could do with remembering that Chaucer's pilgrims are headed to Canterbury to pay homage to Thomas Becket. Knowledge makes a lot of life easier, and it allows us to raise our conversations above the banal. It would make life like a class in which everyone has done his homework: we don't need to establish the base every time we approach a subject. If we're talking about Galileo, we should KNOW what Copernicus has already contributed and what Ptolemy has argued.
This is probably the biggest lamentation I have, is that the acquisition of knowledge is difficult, very difficult. It comes easier to some, but most of us have to work very hard to acquire it. For that reason, we tend to become lazy. We read 'A Christmas Carol' when we should have read 'David Copperfield'. We learn some French or Spanish when we should be learning Latin. We learn about Madrid's 'culture' when we should be reading 'Don Quixote'. Americans are the best when it comes to sidestepping actual work.
The problem, of course, is that we become ill-informed. We may never know how much America is hated if we only watch FOX news. We may never understand evolution if we don't try to learn what it really is. And we will be forever foreigners if we don't start learning some other languages -- we will even be foreigners in our own country soon if we do not know Spanish. Why do we stop the immigrants from coming into the US? Why do we try to censor the radio and TV, and ban video games? Make no mistake, it is laziness.
We don't want our cushy jobs taken and we don't want to have to learn aNOTHER language (one is enough, right?). We would hate to have to raise our children ourselves and actually teach them right from wrong ourselves, so we'll just make sure NO ONE can listen to eminem or play GTA. The fact is, many of us grow up with these things (myself included), and we listen to eminem and Dre and play GTA and Halo, and we still know right from wrong. My parents raised me, as many parents do, to know good from bad regardless of what I see or hear.
I want to make an argument against authoritative rule (raising your children kind of rule), something about how religion reinforces one's dependence on authority, and so those whose parents say (ridiculous) things like "my country, right or wrong" begin to stop questioning someone who, say, invades a country on totally false pretenses. But I don't feel like making that argument, though I feel it is accurate.
Lazy ass Americans. God forbid we have to earn our keep and compete with others.
February 4, 2007
Why be smart?
While it is understandable that intelligence may assist those seeking advancement in society, brilliance may perhaps be a hinderence. In my case, and that of those with whom I conspire, being smarter is accompanied by a different understanding of the world. I say different instead of better because the understanding is more objective than that of lay people--not specifically better. This perspective of the world is filtered through an eye of equations and empirical observations. Thus, through the objective eye, everything is abstracted from its context and true meaning. A leaf no longer represents a beautiful appendage of a tree, but a collection of cells with the primary purpose of transforming energy. While energy transfer is the leaf's purpose, there is much more to it than that. The best way to demonstrate this is through a quote by John Sanbonmatsu. He would say, "If I were to describe someone to you--say for a blind date, I would not begin by describing that they have two kidneys, about nine feet of lower intestine, and a brain. Furthermore, I would not use even more specific details, perhaps a measure that is perfectly unique to them and identifies them specifically. No, you begin by describing what the person is like, what they have done. It is not mere physical being that makes a thing, it is the experiences of that thing." In the empirical understanding of the leaf, there is no room for a story about how it was the first to grow to its full size in the spring, or that that particular leaf is the favorite of a bird that lives in a nest just a few feet away. Perhaps that is a bit too much anthropomorphism, but the point is still there. Such perspectives make sense when considering Descartes's ideas regarding separation of body and mind. It is from Descartes's objective observation that the scientific method was derived. Questioning the validity of my perspective in the first place is a product of his writings.
Moving on, it is not clear yet if this perspective is limited to the intelligent. The primary argument for this is that most people do not consider such subtitles as non-ideal behavior of solutions--even when they encounter such solutions constantly. This disregard or perhaps ignorance can be extended to nearly any topic of chemistry or physics or biology or any other science. So then it is through a vivid understanding of quantized physical processes that I am distanced from my world. It follows then that those who are not familiar with the knowledge of the subtle workings of processes are not distanced from nature. This is not to say that they are unintelligent, but merely ignorant.
Marx would make a contrary argument, attributing this estrangement from nature to our economic structure. Working estranges the worker from everything around him, and himself. This is done, according to Marx, because the product of labor is not the possession of the laborer. One who is working puts oneself into a product which is only to be taken away, taking away oneself as well. When labor becomes necessary for survival (as it is in contemporary society), the natural need for survival is supplanted by labor, and thus labor becomes natural and that which was previously natural (eating, drinking, sleeping) becomes animal. It is thus through labor that we are disconnected from the world. Clearly, this does not apply only to those who look at the world through an empirical lens. Under Marx's argument, all members of Contemporary American Society are disconnected from the true function and true reality of all that surrounds us.
How can this disconnection be overcome? According to Marx, the estrangement as a product of labor is a natural step in the transition to communism. Thus, he (as no doubt Hegel would too) would argue that it will subside with the progression of time Perhaps even by merely recognizing it one can transcend the confines of this mind state (a very Buddhist idea). These two ideas seem that they could work for disconnection via labor, but how does one overcome disconnect rooted in intelligence or, more accurately, understanding. Does gaining knowledge of the fact that there is more to something that what can be measured constitute an escape from an empirical analysis? Can this problem, as many philosophers would argue, be solved through philosophy, by merely considering what could be behind the numbers? More importantly than these two questions, does one who lacks understanding have a more intimate connection with the truth of everything they see? This last question becomes even more important when one considers that a Cartesian perspective is rooted in human observation. With this in mind, one can conclude that those who are better versed in empirical knowledge gain a more human understanding of the world. Therefor, a less empirical and more intimate understanding must be closer to what the true or pure relationship is intended to be. At any rate, I must end my post here (though still incomplete).
Moving on, it is not clear yet if this perspective is limited to the intelligent. The primary argument for this is that most people do not consider such subtitles as non-ideal behavior of solutions--even when they encounter such solutions constantly. This disregard or perhaps ignorance can be extended to nearly any topic of chemistry or physics or biology or any other science. So then it is through a vivid understanding of quantized physical processes that I am distanced from my world. It follows then that those who are not familiar with the knowledge of the subtle workings of processes are not distanced from nature. This is not to say that they are unintelligent, but merely ignorant.
Marx would make a contrary argument, attributing this estrangement from nature to our economic structure. Working estranges the worker from everything around him, and himself. This is done, according to Marx, because the product of labor is not the possession of the laborer. One who is working puts oneself into a product which is only to be taken away, taking away oneself as well. When labor becomes necessary for survival (as it is in contemporary society), the natural need for survival is supplanted by labor, and thus labor becomes natural and that which was previously natural (eating, drinking, sleeping) becomes animal. It is thus through labor that we are disconnected from the world. Clearly, this does not apply only to those who look at the world through an empirical lens. Under Marx's argument, all members of Contemporary American Society are disconnected from the true function and true reality of all that surrounds us.
How can this disconnection be overcome? According to Marx, the estrangement as a product of labor is a natural step in the transition to communism. Thus, he (as no doubt Hegel would too) would argue that it will subside with the progression of time Perhaps even by merely recognizing it one can transcend the confines of this mind state (a very Buddhist idea). These two ideas seem that they could work for disconnection via labor, but how does one overcome disconnect rooted in intelligence or, more accurately, understanding. Does gaining knowledge of the fact that there is more to something that what can be measured constitute an escape from an empirical analysis? Can this problem, as many philosophers would argue, be solved through philosophy, by merely considering what could be behind the numbers? More importantly than these two questions, does one who lacks understanding have a more intimate connection with the truth of everything they see? This last question becomes even more important when one considers that a Cartesian perspective is rooted in human observation. With this in mind, one can conclude that those who are better versed in empirical knowledge gain a more human understanding of the world. Therefor, a less empirical and more intimate understanding must be closer to what the true or pure relationship is intended to be. At any rate, I must end my post here (though still incomplete).
MENSA, high-IQ, low-functioning
Why would someone with an IQ of 150 or higher, mine being 149, of course, have problems functioning in society?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)