16 ms·

Exactly the problem that Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality i

Exactly the problem that Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality is a false hope for all. She fucked over a lot of people, she is hated still by a large portion of the British people to do this as a woman within the male dominated power structures of the time is nothing to be proud of.

Uchikoma 14y ago
"if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have" This is pure sexism and stereotyping men.
- raganwald 14y ago
  Not necessarily. Consider a society with two kinds of "Sneetches." One kind has stars, one does not. They begin with equal numbers on an island with equal opportunities, but socially they have network effects: They prefer to do business with "their own kind" and so forth. Such a system could be unstable: A small, random increase in power by either group could accelerate over time the way tribes in survivor can create coïlitionsn and eliminate everyone else. Now let's say we end up with all the positions of power held by the Sneetches with stars. A Sneetch without a star might make a similar comment. But perhaps, this Sneetch has the insight to see that what needs to be changed is the system, rather than merely shuffling the players around. Putting Sneetches without stars into positions of power in and of itself won't change the inherent problem of network effects. Perhaps things will realign around Sneetches from the West side of the Island, or Sneetches that like a particular sport, but still be discriminatory in a way. This Sneetch might simply want to change the underlying mechanism of Sneetch society. Go for a cure, you might say, rather than relieve a symptom.
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    What in god's name are you talking about? To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power. Goldman's argument is a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Uchikoma is correct to discount it for what it is.
    - raganwald 14y ago
      To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power. Seriously? Maybe I misunderstand you, but it sounds like the following: Woman stands up: "All the positions of power are held by men, who promote other men into positions of power. It is obvious that men are sexist!" To which you reply: "To suggest that men are something-something is as inherently sexist as suggesting that women are too emotional to hold power. You are a sexist!!!!!" Black person stands up: "And another thing, all the men in power are white!" Somebody else replies, "Possibly, but the fact is that we are colour-blind and never noticed it. You are a racist!" :-)
      - run4yourlives 14y ago
        Just to reiterate: (the problem) Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality is a false hope for all. i.e.: If women obtain power their positions should be different from men because men hold morally bankrupt positions. Women who obtain power by being competent at the game as it stands/expressing views similar to men are not worth celebrating at all. I'm not sure what you are arguing, but this is the original point and of course it is obviously a sexist position.
        pekk 14y ago
        Suppose that the people in power are doing things wrong. It is valid and not sexist to point out that putting other kinds of people in power to do the same things wrong, will not solve the real problem. The problem is that they are doing things wrong, not which plumbing they have.
        scarecrowbob 14y ago
        You are misreading the quote.
        ErrantX 14y ago
        Not exactly. I see what you're getting at - but the original point is criticizing those positions of power as morally bankrupt and noting that although it is equality to see women in those same positions, those claiming it would be beneficial by making those positions more moral are holding to a false premise. i.e. that women entering these positions, which the commenter holds as morally bankrupt, won't make them better.
- scarecrowbob 14y ago
  No-- that's not true. Goldman's statement isn't saying that these positions of powere are morally bankrupt -because- they are held by men. She's saying that the positions of power -are- morally bankrupt, and it doesn't matter which gender inhabits them, they are still bad. We can disagree with her that she's wrong about the morality of those positions, but her statement is not a sexist statement.
sergiosgc 14y ago
I am not British, and was 5 when she was in power. I may be wrong, but Thatcher, in my view, falls in the class of politicians with a medium/long term plan. She could have been wrong, but as current events show, it is even worse to be led by politicians who have no idea where Europe will be ten years from now. It looks like no plan is worse than a poor plan.
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  The disagreement is typically around whether the plan was really about necessary economic restructuring or just the latest assault in Britain's 1000 year-old class war. The actions taken towards the communities she "restructured" since her premiership seem to show evidence in favor of the latter. If thatcher and the tories were really concerned with improving the country as a whole, they would have taken action on the long-term systemic problems with our workforce (education etc) and given the communities they destroyed something to do between then and now. Instead what they did was simply replace the industry with foreign financial wizardry, while leaving the workers to rot. 30 years later, they use the gap in achievement between these two groups as a stick with which to beat the poor even harder. And that's the last I'm saying on this subject today.
  - sergiosgc 14y ago
    Viewed from outside, it looks like Britain's gambit towards financial services was highly successful. True, Britain completely destroyed the industrial might it had in the first half of the XX century. It gained, in the process, European leadership in finance. A number of questions arise, of course. Does finance employ the same people that worked in factory floors? No. Is finance sustainable in the long term? I doubt it, as it is much more mobile than manufacturing (Germany is attacking the British stronghold in finance). Would manufacturing decline anyway? Possibly; in the US it did, but in Germany it didn't. In the end, it is always a game of what-ifs. Anyhow, I'm not in the position to have a sustained opinion on Thatcher's policies. I was way too young, and did not really study British history from the period. I have no idea if they were positive or negative overall. She did have a plan, though. I wish current European leaders had one too, beyond "let's grab what we can while the Titanic is going down".
Nursie 14y ago
I'm not sure why you think women in positions of power should lead to an intrinsically better world? Obviously women being properly represented in all walks of life is better in and of itself, but the outcomes beyond equality? This is succinctly summed up in one of the dilbert books - Phenomenon: Equal rights and representation of women in the workplace. Result: Everyone realises women are just as stupid and selfish as men.
- bcoates 14y ago
  Emma Goldman was an Anarchist, so I assume her preference was for the position to be vacant rather than occupied by a woman.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Then why even bother mentioning men and women? I'm not trying to make a point here, just wondering really.
run4yourlives 14y ago
Or - She saved a country from economic collapse and restored the UK to a position of being one of the world's most powerful voices. The UK was as Greece is today in 1979. Hell there were three months of strikes by miners employed by the government in an unsustainable, unprofitable industry BEFORE she even took office. And people still bitch that their kids didn't get free milk at school for lunch.
- JPKab 14y ago
  As an American, I don't think I can possibly understand the mentality of late 70's/early 80's Britain. Is there a large percentage of the population in Britain that views WHAT she did as wrong or is it HOW she did it? I can understand the HOW, but why would people think that handouts aren't first hand-ins? Do people really believe there is a such thing as FREE milk? When I hear about the mining strikes causing 3 day work weeks for the entire country, my thought is the same as any other sane individual: You, sir, are cancelled.
  - rahoulb 14y ago
    Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War (and in hock to the US for billions of dollars as well). As part of the attempt to rebuild the country a consensus was formed that the British state would step in and help people - hence the NHS, hence free school milk (as rickets was a very common disease). The unions had too much power for much of that time, but British industry also had terrible management practices so I would put both "sides" as bad as each other. But while Thatcher shook things up and modernised many parts of the economy, she did it in an extremely divisive and many would say callous way - by devastating communities (especially in the north of England), destroying British manufacturing and putting unemployment up to 3 million (with millions more on disability, to make the jobless figures look better). And these are legacies that still live on today - where I grew up there are still houses with barbed wire between neighbours who have lived there for years - as a result of the miner's strike. The north is still significantly poorer than the south, with much higher unemployment. The current government has just pushed through an extremely painful reform of disability allowance that appears to be punishing the genuinely disabled as much as the "skivers". And in Scotland she is so despised that you can't even say her name in public after shutting down much of the country's industry and taking North Sea oil revenue down south. For the most part, nowadays, the question isn't whether the reforms were needed, but whether they had to be done so painfully and whether the benefits of those reforms were shared fairly. There is definitely a north-south divide within the country on that.

Uchikoma 14y ago

"if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have" This is pure sexism and stereotyping men.

raganwald 14y ago
Not necessarily. Consider a society with two kinds of "Sneetches." One kind has stars, one does not. They begin with equal numbers on an island with equal opportunities, but socially they have network effects: They prefer to do business with "their own kind" and so forth. Such a system could be unstable: A small, random increase in power by either group could accelerate over time the way tribes in survivor can create coïlitionsn and eliminate everyone else. Now let's say we end up with all the positions of power held by the Sneetches with stars. A Sneetch without a star might make a similar comment. But perhaps, this Sneetch has the insight to see that what needs to be changed is the system, rather than merely shuffling the players around. Putting Sneetches without stars into positions of power in and of itself won't change the inherent problem of network effects. Perhaps things will realign around Sneetches from the West side of the Island, or Sneetches that like a particular sport, but still be discriminatory in a way. This Sneetch might simply want to change the underlying mechanism of Sneetch society. Go for a cure, you might say, rather than relieve a symptom.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  What in god's name are you talking about? To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power. Goldman's argument is a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Uchikoma is correct to discount it for what it is.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power. Seriously? Maybe I misunderstand you, but it sounds like the following: Woman stands up: "All the positions of power are held by men, who promote other men into positions of power. It is obvious that men are sexist!" To which you reply: "To suggest that men are something-something is as inherently sexist as suggesting that women are too emotional to hold power. You are a sexist!!!!!" Black person stands up: "And another thing, all the men in power are white!" Somebody else replies, "Possibly, but the fact is that we are colour-blind and never noticed it. You are a racist!" :-)
    - run4yourlives 14y ago
      Just to reiterate: (the problem) Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality is a false hope for all. i.e.: If women obtain power their positions should be different from men because men hold morally bankrupt positions. Women who obtain power by being competent at the game as it stands/expressing views similar to men are not worth celebrating at all. I'm not sure what you are arguing, but this is the original point and of course it is obviously a sexist position.
      - pekk 14y ago
        Suppose that the people in power are doing things wrong. It is valid and not sexist to point out that putting other kinds of people in power to do the same things wrong, will not solve the real problem. The problem is that they are doing things wrong, not which plumbing they have.
      - scarecrowbob 14y ago
        You are misreading the quote.
      - ErrantX 14y ago
        Not exactly. I see what you're getting at - but the original point is criticizing those positions of power as morally bankrupt and noting that although it is equality to see women in those same positions, those claiming it would be beneficial by making those positions more moral are holding to a false premise. i.e. that women entering these positions, which the commenter holds as morally bankrupt, won't make them better.
scarecrowbob 14y ago
No-- that's not true. Goldman's statement isn't saying that these positions of powere are morally bankrupt -because- they are held by men. She's saying that the positions of power -are- morally bankrupt, and it doesn't matter which gender inhabits them, they are still bad. We can disagree with her that she's wrong about the morality of those positions, but her statement is not a sexist statement.

sergiosgc 14y ago

I am not British, and was 5 when she was in power. I may be wrong, but Thatcher, in my view, falls in the class of politicians with a medium/long term plan. She could have been wrong, but as current events show, it is even worse to be led by politicians who have no idea where Europe will be ten years from now. It looks like no plan is worse than a poor plan.

JonnieCache 14y ago
The disagreement is typically around whether the plan was really about necessary economic restructuring or just the latest assault in Britain's 1000 year-old class war. The actions taken towards the communities she "restructured" since her premiership seem to show evidence in favor of the latter. If thatcher and the tories were really concerned with improving the country as a whole, they would have taken action on the long-term systemic problems with our workforce (education etc) and given the communities they destroyed something to do between then and now. Instead what they did was simply replace the industry with foreign financial wizardry, while leaving the workers to rot. 30 years later, they use the gap in achievement between these two groups as a stick with which to beat the poor even harder. And that's the last I'm saying on this subject today.
- sergiosgc 14y ago
  Viewed from outside, it looks like Britain's gambit towards financial services was highly successful. True, Britain completely destroyed the industrial might it had in the first half of the XX century. It gained, in the process, European leadership in finance. A number of questions arise, of course. Does finance employ the same people that worked in factory floors? No. Is finance sustainable in the long term? I doubt it, as it is much more mobile than manufacturing (Germany is attacking the British stronghold in finance). Would manufacturing decline anyway? Possibly; in the US it did, but in Germany it didn't. In the end, it is always a game of what-ifs. Anyhow, I'm not in the position to have a sustained opinion on Thatcher's policies. I was way too young, and did not really study British history from the period. I have no idea if they were positive or negative overall. She did have a plan, though. I wish current European leaders had one too, beyond "let's grab what we can while the Titanic is going down".

Nursie 14y ago

I'm not sure why you think women in positions of power should lead to an intrinsically better world? Obviously women being properly represented in all walks of life is better in and of itself, but the outcomes beyond equality? This is succinctly summed up in one of the dilbert books - Phenomenon: Equal rights and representation of women in the workplace. Result: Everyone realises women are just as stupid and selfish as men.

bcoates 14y ago
Emma Goldman was an Anarchist, so I assume her preference was for the position to be vacant rather than occupied by a woman.
- Nursie 14y ago
  Then why even bother mentioning men and women? I'm not trying to make a point here, just wondering really.

run4yourlives 14y ago

Or - She saved a country from economic collapse and restored the UK to a position of being one of the world's most powerful voices. The UK was as Greece is today in 1979. Hell there were three months of strikes by miners employed by the government in an unsustainable, unprofitable industry BEFORE she even took office. And people still bitch that their kids didn't get free milk at school for lunch.

JPKab 14y ago
As an American, I don't think I can possibly understand the mentality of late 70's/early 80's Britain. Is there a large percentage of the population in Britain that views WHAT she did as wrong or is it HOW she did it? I can understand the HOW, but why would people think that handouts aren't first hand-ins? Do people really believe there is a such thing as FREE milk? When I hear about the mining strikes causing 3 day work weeks for the entire country, my thought is the same as any other sane individual: You, sir, are cancelled.
- rahoulb 14y ago
  Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War (and in hock to the US for billions of dollars as well). As part of the attempt to rebuild the country a consensus was formed that the British state would step in and help people - hence the NHS, hence free school milk (as rickets was a very common disease). The unions had too much power for much of that time, but British industry also had terrible management practices so I would put both "sides" as bad as each other. But while Thatcher shook things up and modernised many parts of the economy, she did it in an extremely divisive and many would say callous way - by devastating communities (especially in the north of England), destroying British manufacturing and putting unemployment up to 3 million (with millions more on disability, to make the jobless figures look better). And these are legacies that still live on today - where I grew up there are still houses with barbed wire between neighbours who have lived there for years - as a result of the miner's strike. The north is still significantly poorer than the south, with much higher unemployment. The current government has just pushed through an extremely painful reform of disability allowance that appears to be punishing the genuinely disabled as much as the "skivers". And in Scotland she is so despised that you can't even say her name in public after shutting down much of the country's industry and taking North Sea oil revenue down south. For the most part, nowadays, the question isn't whether the reforms were needed, but whether they had to be done so painfully and whether the benefits of those reforms were shared fairly. There is definitely a north-south divide within the country on that.