Prostitution and Communism

[JohnT]

Again, the statements y'all make that fly in the face of the overwhelming historical evidence.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Again, the statements y'all make that fly in the face of the overwhelming historical evidence.

I was talking theoretically about communism, but factually about capitalism.

[JohnT]

Nice dodge, that. Too bad nobody is buying.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Nice dodge, that. Too bad nobody is buying.

I'm not selling.

[chequita guevara]

JohnT, if being a stay-at-home mother is so wonderful, fullfilling, and such a source of self-development, why did the cult of motherhood in the fifties produce the feminist revolution? Almost everywhere, across the world, when a revolution occurs, women demand freedom from the home.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
4. Neighborhood "creches." Makes taking care of 10 0-5 year-olds sound as peaceful and as easy as tending a garden. "Creches."

You are aware that these things do exist and do work, aren't you?

True, neighbourhood creches exist in Commielands such as Sweden or France, but I believe that American babies aren't noticeably different from Eurocom ones.

[Kidlicious]

As long as you give your paycheck to women they don't care about staying home all day.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
JohnT, if being a stay-at-home mother is so wonderful, fullfilling, and such a source of self-development, why did the cult of motherhood in the fifties produce the feminist revolution? Almost everywhere, across the world, when a revolution occurs, women demand freedom from the home.

And you change the subject.

Typical.

Che, your statement rests on two points:

1. Stay at home moms don't "work" and are not "productive" or "fulfilling their potential." Your words.

One would hope they'd chose to develop themselves more fully, taking advantage of neighborhood or workplace based creches, however.

2. Therefore, they must be forced to work as they are nothing but "shirkers." Again, your words.

Actually, the "forced to work" is Kollontai's words. But you seem to agree with them, both overall and in their specific historical placement.

You aren't allowing at all for the fact that many stay at home mothers, in fact, love what they do. And choose it. You'd rather force them to leave their kids to... pick up garbage, from what I gathered of your other statements.

Again, the womens movement was about choice. The choice to stay at home or the choice to work. The choice to have an abortion or the choice to have the baby. The situation you're talking about is a situation where women didn't have the choice and rebelled accordingly. But they didn't have the womens movement just because they didn't want to hang with their kids.

It's sad that I have to explain that to you - you seem rather enlightened in spite your rigidly authoritarian belief system.

And Spiffor? We have those too. We just call them "day care." You say Tomato, I say Tomahto.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
Che, your statement rests on two points:

And you're deliberately trying to make the most sinister interpreation you can.

[JohnT]

JohnT, if being a stay-at-home mother is so wonderful, fullfilling, and such a source of self-development, why did the cult of motherhood in the fifties produce the feminist revolution?

Pot, this is kettle. Kettle, pot.

[Kidlicious]

JohnT,

Does your wife get an allowance? Can she spend whatever she wants freely? Who controls the money and in what proportion?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
And Spiffor? We have those too. We just call them "day care." You say Tomato, I say Tomahto.

I'm sorry if English is a foreign language for me, and if the word I learned for this is "creche", considering that's it's exactly like in French, and that's how the thing is called in SMAC.

So, what exactly is so laughable about creches/day cares?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious
JohnT,

Does your wife get an allowance? Can she spend whatever she wants freely? Who controls the money and in what proportion?

No.

Yes.

Her. I allow myself a $60 allowance a week.

Of course, it's not as if it's all discretionary - bills, mortgage, investments, etc.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JohnT
Really? Cite on the number of starving people in capitalist societies?

1 Thirty-five million people-including 13.1 million children-live in food insecure households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents approximately 12.5 percent of the US population. 1
2 3.4 percent of U.S. households experience hunger: they frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. 9.4 million people, including 3.1 million children, live in these homes. 1
3 12.5 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger: they have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 25.5 million people, including 13.1 million children, live in these food insecure homes. 1

link

When I was in the US, I frequently saw homeless people, many of them begged for scraps of food.

So unless this is a pathetic attempt at dismissing a widely known social problem, I have no idea what else you could be getting at.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Troll? Or do you really misunderstand the concept so badly?

I'd say both.