> Ian:
>
> >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....
***************
Well hey if I'm wrong then you take a stab at the substantive solution that will
eliminate all racism, sexism etc. And don't tell me "abolish the wage system".
After the revolution somebody will still be handling nuclear waste with some
level of risk. Somebody will still be working in morgues on the night shift etc.
Prestige is a stupid concept.
>
> >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.
**********
Well then, what would a post division-of-labor society look like. The moment you
say not everyone can be a brain surgeon or a theatrical performer that wants to
be you have a division-of-labor that some will call "unjust" irrespective of how
that division came about. I never said that education in itself would solve the
problem. Surely the tack is for us to make every effort to achieve the same
quality in all school districts. Believe me if I knew of the educational etc.
solutions that got rid of the Howard Sterns of the world, you'd be the second
person to know about it.
>
> >"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?
**************
Just because race/gender are constituted by beliefs that have no empirical referent independent of the discourse that they are, one would still want to track racist/sexist behavior in the same way that sociologists of religion track the behavior, practices and beliefs of people who believe in god even though god does not refer to an objective being. That is not to say one would use the same methodologies; rather create methodologies that facilitate the ability of places like the EEOC [assume for the moment it would be staffed by people like you and me :-)] to create a system of monitoring and civil penalties that make said behaviors extremely cost prohibitive to firms. Again, no one institutional loci will be enough to tackle the whole problem but again, the abolition of r/s should not lead us to believe that they are necessary or sufficient for getting rid of C, nor that getting rid of C is a necessary or sufficient reason for getting rid of r/s.
> >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.
*********
Well getting that will be every bit as difficult as eliminating racism and
sexism! And it doesn't follow that getting PR will get rid of r/s; look at
Europe, plenty of racism/sexism over there that I can see.
>
> 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.
*******
You miss my point or do you deny that race is like phlogiston. I'll be the first to admit that trying to get rid of r/s will be as difficult as trying to get theists to let go of their ontology/cosmology. Changing institutions can take us very far but we can't be sure they'll go far enough. The point is to try. How many people are still racists after reading Gould or L & L? Assume for a moment everyone could see them talk on TV and it was hyped the same way the Super Bowl was, wouldn't that too go a long way given a continuous process of cultural change even as we admit that in and of itself it surely wouldn't be enough....
> 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.?
********
I didn't say it was meaningless I said it doesn't refer. Hell let's go further;
why call it abortion, why call it a fetus; playing the radical contingency of
all "settled" namings of the social is too easy. That's what I think we can do
with race and gender; do the Foucault on folks, defamiliarize them with those
"stable" "meanings" they've internalized. A variant of the William Burroughs
line "don't let the cop inside [your head]".
>
> >>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?
*************
Well hell, let's do what Whiskers does and just have the courage to ditch all
"rights" discourse! Why believe in difference?
> >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." :-)
**********
Sorry, I forgot my :-) on that one. I never said gender was meaningless....yet. By your own argument it will one day be so but not yet it's just "over" the "horizon" where the revolution is.
>
> >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."
************
So you yearn for the day and society in which the terms race and gender and the nefarious forms of behavior those categories give rise to no longer exist, but can't take the first step and say they don't refer and let us not take the time to point out to our fellow citizens that racism exists even though race doesn't in the same was religious belief does yet god doesn't and that we shouldn't be racist or religious believers precisely because race and god don't exist.
In '95-'96 I joined in earnest with fellow Fedex employees in DC who were trying to get a union in a big way. I laid the same kind of story on more than a few of them that I'm sharing with you. I was one of the few "white" people in a building with just over 300 in a potential bargaining unit comprised overwhelmingly of African Americans. More than a few of them were post-Farrakhan. I gave them my rap and burnt the better part of a few paychecks handing out copies of Labor and Monopoly Capital. From my experience there I can tell you most of them don't believe in race but they know racism exists. They had that sensibility before I shared my conjectures on the matter. Some got it [my version of race and r/s] right away, some didn't get it at all. That's how it goes. Some of them got Marx, some of them just wanted a pay raise and the DEA out of the building so we wouldn't be killed while working the streets.
>
> >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."
********
Socialization of reproductive labor isn't individual women's work now for lots
of women. I for one wish "The Left Hand of Darkness" were a biological reality
every other century or so for our species, shake things up a bit.
>
> >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
C 'ya
Ian