Capitalism has already failed. Climate change/enviro collapse will be blamed on it, and it will die. We're just living in its twilight. It's not precisely about profit, it's about civilization level collapse.
Conversation
capitalism is a great way of doing things, but it explicitly lacks the ability to self-regulate (despite what libertarians think), and if it "wins" by getting rid of or buying up those alternatives which do regulate it, it destroys its own ability to survive.
1
3
It can continue by burning off population. JBP's appeal to men seems simple: men are useless except for war or heavy construction. Women perhaps less likely to strike (at least violently).
Fredrick Jameson says if you want socialism, join the army. He wants everyone in the army.
1
Men are not useless, though. Not even remotely.
We have stamina, emotional resilience and a number of other things far in excess of women (yes, on average).
There is no shortage of onerous tasks outside of war or construction that men are well-adapted to. It's a bait-&-switch.
3
Not sure that we have more emotional resilience than women, or stamina. It's really a definitional question. Women last longer in bad circumstances than men do.
1
2
Fair to you. My position is not that men are inherently physiologically superior, but that we are better adapted to certain tasks (and risk less of our capacity to bear children by incurring harm).
Dirty jobs are ours to take, so that women can choose freely if they want them.
1
I don't mean any condescension towards women by that: I think women can and should choose their own paths.
But I think our role is akin to that of soldiers protecting officers - our role is less valuable, we are expendable, so ideally we should put ourselves in harm's way.
1
I don't think men should be compelled to take that role any more than women should be compelled to have children, but I do think it's a role we slot into naturally.
Just because we can't give birth doesn't mean our only use is violence or hard labor.
2
One challenge here is the broad generalizations of how men and women “are”, and that any skills / abilities / proclivities humans have must be tossed in one of these two buckets, but never both. Does not compute.
1
2
I agree. I am not objecting to it.
What I am trying to say is that, given the vast majority of women can bear children and, well, no men can, we have some job openings in high-risk-to reproductive-health-fields, even in the event that women could do everything better than us.
1
1
This is not some kind of attempt to label "natural" roles (except that, typically, women can give birth and men can fertilize eggs), but rather to say that the conservative image of man as warrior or worker ONLY is ridiculously naive and a bit condescending.
Women don't seem to come close to men (on average) in interest in intellectual argumentation. This is part of the conservative image of man too, but a) discussing it has been stigmatized, and b) evo-bio is ill suited to weighing its advantages.
1
They aren't, just like we don't come close in compassion.
But making arguments on averages only works for a very limited set of cases (such as the one I'm making). Conservatives tend to misemploy them, which is a contributing factor to the stigma.
It's unfair, but c'est la vie.
1
Agreed. And it’s also available at my local sporting goods store where girls can buy the princess or perhaps “sexy pirate” version of any product while boys can get something with imagery alluding to machinery, violence or both. Idiotic.
I realize I'm always putting myself at risk of being branded as a gender fundamentalist, since they employ such arguments in bad faith.
But I think it's a real antidote to male despair to realize we can take risks with fewer repercussions than women, and to embrace that.
1
1
And not, for example, that you have to be some fictional "alpha male" to get something good out of your life.
1
1
Show replies