>Guarantee jobs to all that want one.
Guaranteeing jobs to all in itself doesn't solve the problem of gendered, racialized, & other divisions of labor, though it probably decreases the degree of the problem a great deal. Imagine a society in which everyone has a job _but_ some categories of people -- women, blacks, disabled, whatever -- tend to have jobs with lower wages, lower prestige, lower intellectual stimulation, worse working conditions, etc. than others -- the problem not unlike that of actually and formerly existing socialist societies....
>Guarantee unconditional access to k-college free of charge.
Guaranteeing unconditional access to post-secondary education free of charge in itself doesn't solve the problem of gendered, racialized, & other divisions of labor though it probably decreases the degree of the problem, unless all institutions of higher education have the same quality & social recognition and/or each institution has student, faculty, & administrative demographics that are race-proportionate, gender-proportionate, etc. We haven't even begun to discuss the need for change in material conditions prior to the entry in higher education.
>"Grant" all job applicants "the right" to tape record the job
>interview; have firms fill out forms to
>determine reasons for applicant rejection so as to compile statistics to track
>for racism with fines so large as to create disincentives to engage
>in race and
>sex discrimination or to attempt to lie about it.
The tape-recording of job interviews will help marginally in the event employers are so stupid as to make explicitly discriminatory remarks. What's an argument for compiling statistics, monitoring job interviews, etc. if belief in race, gender, etc. has the same significance as belief in angels, witches, etc. as you argue?
>Launch a public education
>campaign on the tube letting every employer know they're being
>watched and that
>racism/sexism has nowhere to hide anymore [kinda like "Cops"]. Pass
>living wage
>laws. Hold Congressional hearings on reparations during prime-time, trigger a
>society-wide debate on racism etc.
All of the above would be helpful, but no replacement for legally mandated proportional representation.
In any case, none of the above will be possible if you continue to argue that race, gender, etc. are of the same significance as angels, witches, etc.
>>Should we exercise affirmative action for witches and angels as
>>well as for women, blacks, etc., since they are
>>all biologically meaningless categories? If so, why? If not, why not?
>
>Now you're being obtuse.
I'm putting it bluntly because of your argument that gender is as meaningless a category as that of angels, etc. If that's the case, what's the point of saying that abortion is "women's" right, choice, etc.?
>>What's your argument for reproductive rights & liberties? Should
>>men as well as women have a say in women's decision as to whether
>>to give birth or terminate pregnancy?
>
>Have a say; yes. The FINAL say; no.
Why not the "final say" if the category of women is as meaningless as that of angels as you argue? Why treat men and women differently at all?
>Gender baiting
There can't be any "gender-baiting" -- whatever the hell you mean by the term you coined -- if gender is as meaningless a term as angels, can there? It would be the same as "angel-baiting." :-)
>What? Ideas don't count when it comes to changing other minds but they do when
>moving about bits of matter which then change minds?
No one here has said that ideas don't count. I very much object to your stupid _idea_ that it makes sense to argue that race, gender, etc. are categories like witches, angels, etc., because I think ideas do count some (though not as much as many think). :-)
>Is it so hard for you to think that social kinds are NOT mind or discourse
>independent of the societies that constitute them
No one here has said that social kinds are "discourse-independent."
>Reproductive labor is always already socialized; you're merely
>calling [rightly]
>for a different social structure for reproductive labor than that which exists
>under capitalism. Neither you nor I can predict whether after
>capitalism people
>will continue to use the category of woman or man.
I'm _not_ making a prediction; I'm _arguing for change_: socialization of reproduction in such a way that reproductive labor won't be "individual women's work."
>But capitalist racism existed before the US did which is what I was trying to
>convey.
Sure enough -- capitalist slavery existed in colonial America as well before the founding of the United States.
Yoshie