Can you please not post in a throwaway/flamewar style to HN? What you bring up is no doubt one relevant aspect of a long career, but on HN we want comments that enhance curious conversation, not kill it.
This is only half right. The capitalists loved feminism. Biggest expense of many businesses is labor. Double the labor pool, labor cost plummets, & profits skyrocket, so of course the capitalists at the CIA appreciated Steinem, and vice versa.
Would add that Alan Greenspan made a similar remark about his consulting firm. How he hired as many women as he could, since he could get sharp ones at a considerable discount.
There's a Swedish song, which sees it like this "daghemmets utbygnadstakt regleras av konjunkturen, så tillmäts kvinnan sin plats i den ekonomiska strukturen, en billig arbetskraftsreserv till hands när fabrikerna visslarn, tillbakapressad av daghemsbrist, om lönsamhetens drivhjul plötsligt gnisslar" "The extension of day care is controlled by the economic demand, so woman is given her place in the economic structure, a cheap work-force reserve at hand when the factories want it; pushed back by too few daycares in case demand slows".
The interpretation isn't anti-feminist, and they see the game rather as a cynical game having little to do with what is in the interests of the women themselves.
I don't have an opinion on pro/anti feminism. I have a big opinion on paid mass manipulators -- especially ones being paid with public funds. It is outrageous --- that they steal our money, then have the gall to propagandize us with it. That they had her operate out of Europe also illustrates how they managed to work around Smith-Mundt at the time.
If propaganda is to be used, it should be to inform the public without deception as to the sender or the purpose, not used to push a political position with public money with deception about the sender or the purpose.
I didn't initially understand your comment, but you mean basically something like that the origin of feminism was in socialism and the CIA saw that it was going to be unavoidable or at least popular and wanting to avoid this leading to socialism becoming popular they decided to make a bastardized version that cuts off any socialist aspect and just turn the whole thing into the modern liberal feminism?
>Women's rights are entitlements and freedoms given to and exploited by women. They are decidedly not entitlements or freedoms given to or exploitable by men, and therefore humans in general.
>They usually come at a substantial cost to men. The vote is one example.
But the right to vote is decidedly an entitlement or freedom given to and exploitable by men, and therefore humans in general.
As are other "women's rights" such as the right to own property, the right to equality in the workplace, the right to bodily autonomy (currently deprecated,) and the right to a divorce. Depending on the culture, the right to drive a car. The right to wear pants without being hauled off to an asylum for sexual deviance.
I'm not actually aware of any such rights exclusive to women. Even men can get maternity leave in most countries. And for the life of me I can't imagine the "considerable cost" that women being able to vote has had on men, much less why that should be considered a problem.
Well it's hard to name them because the names keep changing.
There's a few that are just going for random letters, and simonw's stalker seems to pick a new name for the moment, but isn't really dedicated enough to match Simons volume, so they can get a bit lost.
I guess it would just be reassuring to think that they number very few.
We ban your accounts because you regularly create accounts to break the HN guidelines. That's obviously not ok and it has nothing to do with whom you're replying to.
Guys who think women have it too easy speaks to how far things have come in a generation or two. Some don't understand how second class citizen their mothers & grandmothers were in their time.
If you think 50% of the country not being kept as second class citizens has negatively impacted your ability to make it in life, please look in the mirror and reflect on your own failings.
Not just that, but being socialized to have women enforce their own status as second class citizens in a variety of ways. In some fashion, this is what the "Tradwife" movement is about.
Example: I recall my grandmother opining that women who were assaulted were to blame for their assault, because of how they dressed. That's a hot take even Fox News is staying away from today.
From your perspective it may reflexively seem that women carry zero responsibility for other people's actions in the example you give. Yet at the same time a woman most certainly has a responsibility to herself, her future self who would have to live with the trauma...the many types of trauma...for knowingly going to an environment expected to harbor severe threats from other people.
As a counter to your position, imagine a well-dressed man with diamond and gold jewelry, a very expensive watch, and money spilling from his pockets, casually strolling into a slum known for its violence, and all the while thinking quite airily "It's not my fault if anything bad happens to me. No, not my fault at all."
I drive with my seatbelt on not because it's the law, and not because I'm afraid of my causing an accident. I drive with a seatbelt on because I have a duty to myself to take precautionary action against the inevitable irresponsible and potentially life threatening actions of others. Regardless of who's at fault, ignoring consequences does not diminish personal blame for suffering the outcome.
> As a counter to your position, imagine a well-dressed man with diamond and gold jewelry, a very expensive watch, and money spilling from his pockets, casually strolling into a slum known for its violence, and all the while thinking quite airily "It's not my fault if anything bad happens to me. No, not my fault at all."
There's a massive difference between taking special precautions while "casually strolling into a slum known for its violence" and being expected to take special precautions everywhere you go all of the time.
Even in the case where someone's freedom to wear a nice watch out in public is threatened by lawlessness steps should be taken to secure the ability for men to walk those streets without fear of being assaulted and robbed. Similarly, a woman's ability to dress herself how she likes should also be protected. If a place exists where someone should reasonably expect watches to be stolen or women to be assaulted that shows a failure of law enforcement. If you want to apportion blame the order is: criminals > law enforcement > victim
I have to take issue with your excising the context of my post, especially where the need for seatbelts is concerned: they're needed everywhere you drive. And even though steps are taken to assure we can drive the streets and roads without fear, yet I am personally to blame for not being cautious in protecting myself. Not because of the law, not because of a lack of societal effort to protect me, but because I ignored the need for personally limiting the consequences of bad actors acting badly. Please don't take this to a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Please also don't straw man me again by taking my point to a "massively different" scenario.
And lastly, thank you for silently accepting my point that there are cases, such as the man irresponsibly going into a violent slum, where a person should take special precautions. Perhaps if you can see the need for men to take special precautions then you can take sexism out of the equation and see the need for women doing the same.
> From your perspective it may reflexively seem that women carry zero responsibility for other people's actions in the example you give
Trying to put the focus on the victim's actions and not the criminal's actions is called, "blaming the victim" and it's not an appropriate attitude for people in law enforcement especially to have. And yet - these sorts of stories where reports are dismissed for various reasons (including how someone was dressed) are still pretty pervasive, and the conviction rate still quite low for SA.
I'm not sure I see the rationale behind your response. Could you please let me know where I victim blamed, rather than endorsed personal responsibility for one's own wellbeing? Is there no case to be made against the well dressed, well adorned man, leaking money from his pockets going into a violent slum? Has he zero responsibility for not metaphorically fastening his seat belt against the bad drivers?
The context for my reasoned perspective is certainly there in my post. It's beyond the pale to suggest from it that I'm endorsing or otherwise promoting or supporting a rationale for police inaction and a low conviction rate for SA.
Look, there are reasons companies go through stringent interview processes and background checks for their new hires. There are reasons parents follow up on references for a baby sitter. There are reasons everywhere for people to make responsible efforts to limit potential hurts and damages from other people's purposeful bad actions.
The guy should do the same by not traipsing into a slum. It's a matter of personal responsibility because he personally suffers from the reasonable eventuality of doing so.
> Trying to put the focus on the victim's actions and not the criminal's actions is called, "blaming the victim"
That's exactly what you're doing here - shifting the focus of debate to be about the victim's actions and not that of the perpetrator:
> From your perspective it may reflexively seem that women carry zero responsibility for other people's actions in the example you give. Yet at the same time a woman most certainly has a responsibility to herself, her future self who would have to live with the trauma...the many types of trauma...for knowingly going to an environment expected to harbor severe threats from other people.
I think you'd probably agree that regardless of the actions of the victim, the perpetrator of the crime owns most or all of the blame. Right? To be clear, there's no scenario where you think the victim deserves most of the blame and not the attacker, right?
If all that is true, why die on this hill? Why are you making this conversation about how women choose to dress? Unless it's not true. You tell me.
You completely glossed over the other option I gave. Yet people that make obvious errors like this are making actual decisions about these things, and that’s where the trouble stems from.
> After all socialism also (indirectly) gave us weekends, paid holidays, sick leave, social security, state pensions, and decent healthcare.
The history of these things is that something changes to allow them or everyone discovers that they're advantageous, e.g. the industrial revolution happens and for a few years employers try having workers put in 80 hour weeks but then discover that burn out increases errors and turnover and it's better to hire more people for fewer hours. Then politicians rush to take credit for the thing everyone was by then starting to do anyway by passing a law mandating it.
Also notice that the way these things are implemented in the law are asinine, e.g. if you work for more than 40 hours for one employer then you have to be paid overtime, but if you work 40 hours each for two employers then neither of them does. So then employers cap your hours even if you're willing or otherwise have a need to work more to make more money and those people still end up working 80 hours with no overtime, but now they have two jobs with two commutes and two bosses they have to convince to take vacation at the same time etc.
But the alternative mandates (e.g. individuals are effectively or entirely banned from working over 40 hours) are pretty obviously unreasonable to people who are trying to save up for something or start a side business or get out of debt. So instead you have a law which is essentially useless when it isn't actively counterproductive, but that sounds good and therefore allows politicians to pretend they're helping you.
See also employer-provided healthcare incentives, social security forcing everyone to de facto invest their retirement savings in low-yielding government bonds rather than diversified investments, healthcare corporations capturing regulators to limit competition through the law, etc.
"While popularly pilloried because of her paymaster, Steinem defended the CIA relationship, saying: “In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable.”
Less cloak-and-dagger and more a young, energetic, global representative for American values and freedom"
was part of the Cold War-era soft power projection for the US since Communist countries were uplifting their women a lot more intentionally and structurally, especially compared to their historic baseline [0]. it looks pretty bad if your primary values are freedom but they don't apply super well to half of your entire population
there's also a further-left critique of Steinem [1] as being the public face and visage of pro-American, capitalist feminism, someone who took it from being the more Emma Goldman/Combahee River Collective rooted form - a kind of 'JFK' for the masses to substitute for the more revolutionary ideals of, say, Malcolm X or Dr. King, both of whom were very unpopular in their time and often derided as 'asking for too much' [2]
[0] meh, what's the point?
[1] was coming from a Marxist, and Marxists are going to Marxist.
[2] had nothing about feminism
You're trying to muddy the waters with your positioning. Women's rights are just that. Commingling the concept with economic theory, other civil rights movements, government propaganda, etc doesn't detract from the core concept of: should women be second class citizens in this world?
And another commenter talked about rights as being via the State, but in the end, rights are freedoms, and in the concept of the State it's a handshake agreement that the State will honor those freedoms.
Those same rights are also being challenged by religious doctrine (arguably the State in earlier times).
> Imo the federal apparatus should be broken up and handed to states with a mandate to collaborate to avoid concentration of power
Is this generated by an LLM putting together random popular talking points without regard to whether they make sense together? What would it mean for the CIA to be handed to the states with a mandate to collaborate?
