|
Food Science hadn't defeated impulse control yet Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y&t=49s Fun video about the development of more appetizing foods and why grocery stores started stocking 25 different kinds of spaghetti sauce. Accretionist has issued a correction as of 03:56 on Oct 12, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
why is everyone in this video howling in laughter at the idea of chunky spaghetti sauce? nice share though
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
gently caress Malcolm Gladwell forever
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
whydirt posted:gently caress Malcolm Gladwell forever Always a fun read: http://exiledonline.com/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-a-look-into-the-life-work-of-america%E2%80%99s-most-successful-propagandist/
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
whydirt posted:gently caress Malcolm Gladwell forever
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
whydirt posted:gently caress Malcolm Gladwell forever
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:Amber had a pretty good point on the latest chapo, about how feminism has essentially stalled out. Under capitalism women can only look up to the capitalist ideal of a women. It's all about how successful individual women are, and not about the dignity afforded to the sex as a whole. youre describing shire people 2nd wave feminism. get with the times. academics are way beyond this
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
it’s also not a coincidence that feminism gained popularity when speed and coke stopped being prescribed to housewives
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
soccer is good to me now
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
I don't get it
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:We're working on it So they're implying "Make America Great Again" and "Make America Nazi-Free Again" are mutually opposing principles? rhetorical question; i know the answer already
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
born on a buy you posted:youre describing shire people 2nd wave feminism. get with the times. academics are way beyond this Wages for Housework has been around since second wave. outside of academia it hasn't trickled into mainstream feminism, housework (including child-rearing) still isn't paid, women still face most of the burden of this still unpaid work (regardless if they work outside the home or not), and all this feeds into women's (especially homemakers and/or mothers') higher rates of poverty. what has trickled into mainstream feminism is the capitalist narrative described.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
It is weird that nobody is grasping the contradiction of paying maids to perform domestic labor, but when a homemaker does it they're not entitled to anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It is weird that nobody is grasping the contradiction of paying maids to perform domestic labor, but when a homemaker does it they're not entitled to anything. why the gently caress don't i get paid for bathing myself? the last prostitiute i hired said she wanted 40 bucks for taht poo poo i want a not making GBS threads myself stipend
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
DrPossum posted:why the gently caress don't i get paid for bathing myself? the last prostitiute i hired said she wanted 40 bucks for taht poo poo Homemakers don't just recreate themselves, but perform the bulk of labor which recreates the worker and their family. Comparing domestic labor to wiping your own rear end is myopic. e: https://twitter.com/gokunaruto67/status/918351366845640704 Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 07:02 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It is weird that nobody is grasping the contradiction of paying maids to perform domestic labor, but when a homemaker does it they're not entitled to anything. But what about the other 16+ hours of the day? (or the weekends?) I can guarantee those same poor women could use fair wages for the much larger amount of childcare they do, especially including all the cooking, laundry, errand running, etc. etc. that goes into raising a family. Nope. Barely even a discussion on the left or right outside of the aforementioned "academia". Assuming a fair wage, paying women for child-rearing would likely completely eradicate child poverty, largely reduce the amount of women in poverty, help all manner of mothers and parents in general, and create a stronger future society for everyone (including childless people) as kids would be better cared and provided for (since those wages can go on to supply kids with food, housing, schooling, etc). We'll probably see a generic UBI before we ever see women get paid for the work they've always done though. DrPossum posted:why the gently caress don't i get paid for bathing myself? the last prostitiute i hired said she wanted 40 bucks for taht poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
The biggest reason you won't see wages for housework isn't just misogyny, but that housework, while valid labor, isn't directly or tangentially involved in commodity production. Workers produce commodities, janitors and service personal directly assist in that community production, but housework doesn't, so it gets cut. Same reason bars can't just be places where social gatherings happen, because that doesn't sell anything. They have to be alcohol retailers, first and foremost, even if the drive to sell inhibits or damages a bar's ability to be a healthy place for socializing (selling to already heavily inebriated customers, which just causes more problems with patron behaviour). Naturally, this gendered labor allocation does work out great for misogynists though, because it transforms what should be an obligation (payment for labor rendered) into an act of charity (an allowance granted from a breadwinner), ensuring that both dependence on the husband and alienation from labor is enforced. rudatron has issued a correction as of 08:10 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Liberal feminism tries to loop around this problem by develping women's own ability to partake in commodity production, upskilling and careers and so on, but there's only so many hours in the day, and its not physically possible to 'have it all' - a social life, a career, being an involved parent etc. Reactionaries of course blame feminism as a whole, and I suspect that the drift of some women to reaction is partly because of this short coming of liberal feminism (and it is a short coming, that's rarely addressed). But the real solution here doesn't get any plsy, because socialist feminism just doesn't have enough space in the public conversation, to present its own interpretation. It's either liberals or mouth breathers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The biggest reason you won't see wages for housework isn't just misogyny, but that housework, while valid labor, isn't directly or tangentially involved in commodity production. Workers produce commodities, janitors and service personal directly assist in that community production, but housework doesn't, so it gets cut. This is a bad way to interpret the homemaker's relation to production, because a homemaker enables the recreation of the single most valuable commodity in the entire process: labor. A laborer who must spend so much time maintaining their home instead of working, or maintaining the home instead of performing self-care, will render a poorer quality labor value or even end up incapable of working at all while burdened with the responsibilities of maintaining a home. Performing labor which maintains and enhances the value of property, which nurtures and cultivates children and pets, and which often times balances finances and settles accounts - liberates the laborer to be as productive as they could possibly be. Domestic labor could also become regimented, calculated, and compensated - the reason it's "cut out" isn't because it's too difficult to factor it in to the process of production, but because it's convenient to the process of capital accumulation to suppress household earnings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
Im not suggesting is unimportant, but its more distant relationship to commodity production means there's very little bargaining power. Workers directly involved in commodity prosuction can withhold their labor as a tool against employers, with immediate results. Those more tangentially involved have a less leverage, and under capitalism, your income correlates with how powerful you are, not how important your work is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
In order for housework to be regimented and rationalized, it will have to first be commoditized, which is effectively what is happening with the growing day care industry. Traditional housework isn't commoditized, but under what is effectively a feudal inter-gender relationship, embedded in a capitalist system.
rudatron has issued a correction as of 08:34 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Who is supposed to be paying wage to the person doing chores in a household of people who are depending on a wage themselves? Instead of commodifying housework, a fairly operating family should pool its money and use it fairly based on mutual agreement. Purchasing commodified labor is only possible for those who already own capital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/917929830791962624
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/weedguy420boner/status/918309182771568640
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Who is supposed to be paying wage to the person doing chores in a household of people who are depending on a wage themselves? Instead of commodifying housework, a fairly operating family should pool its money and use it fairly based on mutual agreement. Purchasing commodified labor is only possible for those who already own capital. It's fine that this should happen, but in many cases it won't - and without a regulatory regime to guarantee fair distribution of incomes it will certainly be abused in many cases. Ideally, the easiest way to resolve this problem is to just overthrow capitalism, and use socialist institutions to develop a new system of relations to production. Until then, it's a valid appeal to make that domestic labor should be considered as essential to commodity production as the line or office worker - and therefore deserving of compensation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
In the state of Illinois (for one example), if I am very low income and go to get a job at McDonalds, the state will pay daycare workers to care for the children while I work (good). BUT when I go and get my children to continue to care for them, all of a sudden that work, which if anything increases in intensity, is no longer worthy of a living wage. Seems to me the state ought to pay women for the 24 hours they work to care for their families, and then if the women so choose to give 8 hours of money away to a daycare to work an additional job (or even for some peace of mind) they should be able to do that. We pay for public schools already, and I don't know of any argument you can use for the funding of a public school that should not also be used for the funding of childcare in general. rudatron posted:Naturally, this gendered labor allocation does work out great for misogynists though, because it transforms what should be an obligation (payment for labor rendered) into an act of charity (an allowance granted from a breadwinner), ensuring that both dependence on the husband and alienation from labor is enforced. While misogynists hate it, married women jointly own any marital property, even if her husband is a "breadwinner" or otherwise has a higher salary than hers. He should no more give her a salary than she gives him a salary. She is of course, much more financially vulnerable in the case of divorce or death, as are women as a whole. That said this line feels kind of out of touch in its presumption that all homemakers have a "breadwinner" they can depend on. While misogynists and classists alike hate it, there are single SAHMs even post welfare reform (and there always will be). For black women in particular, the number of single homemakers outnumbers the number of married/cohabitating homemakers. Not to mention those homemakers whose husbands are not employed at all, and in the case of a disability that is one more human she needs to care for without any compensation at all. Aisha has issued a correction as of 08:59 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I don't get it It was the end of the match and Panama were winning and had to win to get into the world cup so doing that wasted a lot of time that likely won't be added on
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
The public school system is already getting privatized and rolled back, ie, commoditized, which shows which way the wind is blowing here. The biggest domestic opposition to a state wage for housework will of course be reactionaries, and them combined with capital can just shoot it down. But I'm not even sure the reactionaries can prevent the total commoditization of everything, including housework. My hunch is that that they'll have to lose first, and socialist feminism can only be realized after that commoditization, only after all traditions have been ground into dust by capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
So UBI?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
no, communism
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:no, communism
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It is weird that nobody is grasping the contradiction of paying maids to perform domestic labor, but when a homemaker does it they're not entitled to anything. So single people should get paid for not being slobs also?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
>the easiest way to resolve this problem is to just overthrow capitalism Keep reaching for that rainbow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
Volcott posted:>the easiest way to resolve this problem is to just overthrow capitalism https://twitter.com/InternetHippo/status/881161169469403137
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
But communism is... bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Volcott posted:But communism is... bad? Wrong again. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taYThk1FX2k
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
This is infuriatingly stupid/tone-deaf. There's an incredible amount of rap that's political, and a bunch that is specifically aimed at Trump, but now that a famous white rapper does it, Olbermann is all 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:55
|
|
