Another letter in the Morning Star in response to my wise, wise thoughts. This one is utterly brilliant!
I would like to congratulate you on the recent article by Jim Jepps (M Star November 2) describing the degradation of the relationship between science and the new Labour government.
However this article does not sit well with your news subs' policy of describing all scientists, from archeologists to zoologists, as "boffins." Come on Star, leave that patronising language to Murdoch.
Bill Atkins
Powys
Annie Leonard and co. (
Adrienne Mayor (
Ed Howker and Shiv Malik
Floella Benjamin (
Mark Watson (
Tim Jackson (
David Wilson (
Clive Lord (
Nickie Roberts
6 comments:
Letter? I thought it was another feature. Jim, you're on fire.
Yeah, I had features two days in a row, people are going to get sick of me!
Although the sudden run is because I wrote one last week and they bumped it along into this week next to this week's one, rather than me suddenly going for it.
I love the MS doublespeak habit of talking about "Left MPs" because they still cant bring themselves to admit that they are ultimately quite soft on a party of war criminals, banker's whores, authoritarianism and large scale corruption.
Steve, some MPs in the Labour Party are on the left. Therefore, the Morning Star is correct to describe them as such. Fact.
Jim, I do see where you're coming from and agree with the letter/ article on feminism. However, I do wonder if equality for women is so harmless, or even a material improvement for the lives of men, so many men would not fight it so hard! The truth is that many men are happy to go along with and propagate the subjugation of women in our society precisely because they get something out of it - prestige, better pay, less competition for work etc.
Is it in men's interests to subjugate women?
If I can use a domestic example of old style marriage...
Having a servant who doubles as a wife is in my interests in a moment by moment sense because i get a cup of tea without having to do anything, but it has potential to cause deep long term problems.
Firstly it is disabling. Is it in my interests to have no understanding of how the washing machine is operated? Or how to make myself a meal? Clearly not, but so many of the men of my Dad's generation cannot look after themselves which means when they divorce or their wife dies or whatever they are in real trouble. This is a direct result of the way we organised gender in relationships.
Like exercise it might be in my 'interests' not to exercise right now and do something less stressful and more interesting but in the long term it's bad for me.
Secondly it is an unfulfilling relationship. If you have contempt for your wife you may be happy to let her live a shit life but you are still bound to someone you despise.
If you respect your wife but let her be a dog's body to you you store up emotional problems because you have to come to terms with why you have the right, the authority over another human being, particularly if she is cleverer, more articulate or more loved than you are.
Domestic violence is clearly not in the interests of the person being punched, but it isn't in the interests of the person punching either. Not in a "ah didums" sense but because being a violent fuck up isn't a good way to be. You're better off as someone who has decent relationships rather than someone who has master/servant relationships.
I'm probably rambling...
Anyway, I don't think working class men are paid more because working class women are paid less. in fact both groups get paid less because the pay differential divides them, making them less able to present a confident united workforce who expects decent pay. The argument in the executive board is slightly different though.
There's a can of particularly nasty worms here that I feel I have to open. The thing is, wages are determined, in part at least, by supply and demand, and the result of the greater participation of women in the workforce (and also of immigration) surely is downward pressure on wages, particularly of those least able to defend their position (lower-paid and non-unionized workers). Feminism and the freedom to work in different countries are Very Good Things, but (when combined with capitalism) they can have not-so-good consequences, particularly for those who were lower down in the heap to start with. And it's not wholly surprising if some of those people start voting for (anti-feminist or) anti-immigrant parties when the mainstream party that was supposed to soften the harder edges of capitalism for them gives up on the job.
Post a Comment