Does Paid Family Leave Really Hurt Women?

Last year, an op-ed at CNN by Vanessa Brown Calder of the pro-corporate LOLbertarian Cato Institute claimed that paid family leave policies actually backfire on Women by making companies less likely to hire them as well as entrenching traditional gender roles.   She seems to see it as s zero-sum game.  And to this day, the article is still being linked to on other articles discussing this important topic.

First of all, except for a very few states, the USA is the only modern or even semi-modern country that does not offer any paid leave for Mothers, let alone fathers or anyone else for that matter.  And even then, the few states that do are rather stingy  compared to most other industrialized nations.  The USA makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus by comparison in that regard. (So much for "Mothers and apple pie".)

Secondly, is there really any truth to the op-ed author's specious claim?  According to the weight of research evidence over the past decade or two, not really.  Except perhaps for poorly-designed programs that 1) force employers to pay for it, rather than via taxes (or money creation), 2) are limited only to mothers or are otherwise not gender neutral, and/or 3) have an unusually long duration--though that last one remains debatable, given the stunning success in the Nordic countries (whose durations of paid leave often exceed a year).  In fact, the only robust downside--if one can even call it that--to long leave durations (i.e. longer than a year) is that they tend to discourage Mothers from returning to paid work compared with durations between nine months and a year.  (A very subjective "downside" at that.)

Otherwise, the well-documented benefits to Women, children, society, and even men as well outweigh any supposed costs.  Ultimately, everyone is better off as a result. It is a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.

Of course, once Women finally reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, this will no longer even be a debate anymore.

True, paid family leave is not an end goal, but merely a good starting point for a more equitable society overall.  Other things need to happen as well, such as Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, shorter and more flexible workweeks for all workers, equal pay, affordable high-quality childcare, as well as longer-term cultural changes as well.  And of course, the biggest elephant in the room--MEN--need to start pulling their weight for once.  But in the meantime, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.  So what are we waiting for?

THIS Is What A Real Anti-Rape Campaign Looks Like

Rape culture, or the attitudes and behaviors that promote rape and sexual assault, and/or blame, silence, or shift the onus onto victims, has been part and parcel of patriarchy for its entire 7000+ year history.  So it is not surprising that, even in the #MeToo era, the tendency to victim-blame (to one degree or another) still persists even in some anti-rape campaigns.  That is, the campaigns give Women the usual advice to not get themselves raped, as opposed to the "novel" idea of simply telling MEN not to rape in the first place.

Or, to put it as bluntly as possible, "make sure the other girl gets raped instead".  Because, let's face it, that is the cold, hard reality.  Predators will target the proverbial weakest antelope of the herd regardless of who it happens to be.

A notable exception to this persistent tendency, however, is Vancouver's "Don't Be That Guy" campaign that began in 2010 and was so successful that they brought it back just a few years later.  The rate of sexual assault dropped by 10% in 2011, which is impressive considered that it had been rising in the several years leading up to it.  And another big Canadian city, Edmonton, Alberta, has also decided to emulate such a successful program as well.

What makes "Don't Be That Guy" so different?  Because it puts the onus on MEN where it really belongs, NOT on Women.  And while many rapists, particularly serial rapists, may not be very receptive to such a message, the fence-sitters who can be swayed by cultural and social norms might.  And the good men who are not rapists who see such messages over and over may be more likely to revoke the rapists' "social license to operate" by not tolerating such behaviors and intervening when they notice red flags in that regard.  True, Vancouver also stepped up law enforcement and improved training for police officers during that time, so that likely had some effect as well, but it is almost certain that at least some of the 10% drop in the first year was due to the rape-culture-jamming messages of the campaign itself.

So remember, fellas:  Don't Be That Guy.  Seriously.  And even if YOU are not "That Guy", you probably know him quite well.

What To Do About Porn? (Part Deux)

In an earlier post, I had discussed (male-created) porn and its dark side, and what to do about it. One of the best things I had recommended was for Women to take over the industry, or at least jam the culture with feminist porn, as opposed to reflexively banning or censoring the often problematic stuff that is currently out there today.

Well, it seems that the city of Berlin, Germany is taking up this idea.  They plan to publicly fund and distribute feminist porn and make it freely available via public broadcasters.  Yes, really.  And their goal is to counteract all of the sexist (and often racist) mainstream porn that is currently readily available online to anyone with a pulse these days.  Young people will look at porn regardless, but at least with feminist porn, they will be learning useful things like consent, communication, and mutual pleasure, while hopefully unlearning all the toxic messages found in mainstream porn.

And I couldn't agree more.  Bring it on!

UPDATE:  Examples of existing feminist porn/erotica can be found here (NSFW).

The False Choice Between Liberty and Community

Imagine, if you will, the following thought experiment:  You have a choice between two villages in which to live.  In Village A, everything would be decided by consensus and you would have to ask permission for literally everything you do, and you would live to be 80.  In Village B, you can be your own boss, do your own thing, and not have to answer to anybody, but you would die at 50.  Which village would you choose?

If you are like most people, or at least most men, you chose the second one, right?  I know I sure would.  But these deliberately absurd examples are simply caricatures of Matriarchy and (the false promise of) patriarchy, respectively.  And this false choice between liberty and community is most likely how the idea of patriarchy was initially sold to men in the first place.  In reality, the decidedly Faustian promise of "every man a king" only applied to the top 1% of men, while the remaining 99% of both men and Women were serfs (if not outright slaves) to one degree or another.

The truth is, of course, far more nuanced than this overly-simplistic (and intellectually dishonest) thought experiment would imply.  There really is no dilemma at all.  Liberty and community need not be at odds with one another--except, of course, under patriarchy in which everything is a zero-sum game at best.  As Carol Brouillet notes in her essay "The Feminist Perspective", the literal meaning of "community" comes from Latin, meaning "free sharing of gifts".  And that is what life would likely be like with Women in charge overall.  And while macro-level decisions would indeed be made by consensus for the most part, there would really be no need for micromanagement, thus essential individual liberty would not be in any real danger.  We would all be sovereign over our own bodies and minds by default, as there would not be any reason why we wouldn't be.  Food for thought.

In other words, the false choice between liberty and community is just another patriarchal Big Lie that all too many people believe.  In fact, it would have to be in the top five of the list of Big Lies, right up there along with "everybody and their mother must work for a living", "everybody must procreate", "humanity is separate from and above Nature", and especially "men are the superior gender and should thus rule the world".  All of these assumptions are absolutely FALSE, and we must dispense with these at once.  Yesterday.

The Faustian Bargain That Wasn't

One perennial theme that seems to run through some circles of the Goddess Movement and Matriarchy Movement is the idea that Women made a sort of Faustian bargain during the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 1970s.  That deal, as the narrative goes, consisted of essentially assimilating into patriarchy by becoming more like men (i.e. less feminine and more masculine) or at least aspiring to the privileges once reserved for men.  And that is supposedly a very, very Bad Thing, as it supposedly represents the ultimate triumph of men over Women, and thus the ultimate triumph of the patriarchy.   The term "Female Erasure" is sometimes used to describe it as well, though the connotation varies.

Gender essentialism aside, this narrative indeed has all of the makings of a good story, except that it isn't really true.  What is sometimes called the "Eclipse" of the 1960s (or 1970s or 1980s, depending on one's perspective) does superficially seem to fit this narrative.  Instead of the patriarchy chewing Women up and spitting them out as in the pre-1960s world, this time Women appear to have been swallowed whole.  But what better way to destroy the patriarchy than from within?  In the belly of the beast, Women have been gaining almost unprecedented power, and soon they will be able to burst through and finally lay waste to that evil system once and for all, and replace it with their own, Goddess willing.

After all, sometimes darkness can show you the Light.  And besides, the apparently increasing aggression of Women actually began with suffragette and First Wave Feminist icon Emmeline Pankhurst, half a century before the 1960s even began.  Even Nikola Tesla remarked upon it in a 1924 interview, also predicting (quite accurately, it now seems) that Women would eventually take over the world.

So it appears that this so-called Faustian bargain was really not one at all.  And those purists and "retreatists", as I like to call them, who claim it is and want to somehow reverse it can easily find themselves to be inadvertent strange bedfellows with the reactionary Phyllis Schlaflys of the world.  Unless, of course, that was really their intention all along.

And rest assured, try as treacherous men may, the true Divine Feminine can never, ever be truly erased or extinguished, as to do so would literally impossible.  And once Women reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, then we will really know that for certain, Goddess willing.

Why (Sexual) Capitalism Must Die, and How to Humanely Euthanize it

I have discussed before how that favorite evil brainchild of patriarchy, capitalism, is literally killing our Mother Earth as we speak, and is thus both ecocidal and ultimately suicidal since humanity is in fact part of Nature (despite frequent and stubborn protestations to the contrary).  And that the only way to humanely euthanize that vile system is to give it the one thing it cannot survive--ABUNDANCE--while harsh austerity measures of any kind (ecological or otherwise) will ultimately backfire in the end, leaving us permanently stuck in a very bad place while still ending up destroying ourselves along with our planet.  But did you know that capitalism also has a sexual dimension as well?

Wait, what?  That's right--and it is one that would make Freud himself blush beet red.  So much so that capitalism should really be called "greed patriarchy", while patriarchy should really be called "lust capitalism" or "sexual capitalism".  Please allow me to explain:

• While financial rentier capitalism uses artificial scarcity of money, goods and services, etc. to control the masses, sexual capitalism uses artificial scarcity of sex (and sex substitutes) to do the same.
• Sexual capitalism, which is part and parcel of patriarchy, uses the "commodity model" of sexuality to make sex just artificially scarce enough for the conditions of the times to effect maximum control of the masses.
• In the commodity model of sexuality, sex (however defined) is seen a something of value that men "take" from Women, but not the other way around, and is seen as a zero-sum game.  A Woman's worth is thus considered inversely proportional to her level of sexual experience, while the reverse is usually (though not always) true for men (i.e. the classic double standard, slut-shaming, etc.).
• Therefore, men have a vested interest to keep the "cost" of sex as low as possible, while Women have a vested interest in keeping the "cost" of sex as high as possible.  One can see how this does not exactly make for harmonious gender relations or mutuality, since the interests of Women and men are inherently opposed in this model.
• At the same time, the (mostly) male elites have a vested interest to keep the "cost" of sex as high as possible, or at least just high enough to control the masses.  This is typically done by punishing Women in one way or another for having too much and/or the wrong kind of sex (i.e. "giving it away" for free or cheap), imposing a very high cost on Women who then pass some of that cost onto men.  Or demanding for specious and spurious reasons that sex be only for procreation and claiming that sexual pleasure especially for its own sake is somehow "sinful".  Thus, they control Women in order to indirectly control men, while (in the days before modern birth control and DNA testing) also ensuring paternity certainty as well.
• That explains the patriarchy's arcane and archaic rules against not only "fornication" and adultery (note how usually only Women have historically been punished for these in practice), but also masturbation, homosexuality, non-monogamy, non-coital sexual activities, abortion, "artificial" birth control, divorce (albeit with some nuance), pornography (albeit with some nuance), and most ironically of all, prostitution (despite the fact that patriarchal marriage is often little more than long-term prostitution in practice).  It also explains why so many self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" have the GALL to oppose birth control despite the fact that it actually has the net effect of reducing the number of abortions due to fewer unwanted pregnancies.
• A high cost of sex (and its substitutes), ceteris paribus, leads to higher birthrates (Women are the brood mares in this system) and more work done by men (men are the work horses) in order to gain access to sex, which ultimately makes the rich richer going.  A low cost of sex (or its substitutes), especially sex for pleasure, leads to lower birthrates and theoretically less incentive for the serfs to work harder to make the rich richer.
• Thus, a relatively high cost of sex is seen as necessary for the oligarchs to keep the whole Ponzi scheme of growth for the sake of growth (i.e. the ideology of the cancer cell, which eventually kills its host) going to make them even richer.
• And the experience of physical pleasure, affection, and intimacy in general (not just sex, but overall) are restricted to one degree or another, so much so that people end up craving it even more through a narrow little keyhole called sex, particularly coitus.
• Not that such sexual strictures really make The System any more virtuous in any sense, of course.  A certain amount of male-defined prostitution, sex trafficking/slavery, rape, and even pedophilia and incest is virtually always tolerated or even tacitly encouraged (clandestinely or otherwise) to one degree or another in patriarchy provided it does not threaten The System or inadvertently give Women too much power.  And these ills tend to explode when sex in general is highly restricted and costly (see what happened in the Victorian era, for example).  It's all just "collateral damage" in the eyes of the patriarchy and the oligarchy, basically.
• And of course, Women primarily get blamed for "getting themselves raped", rather than the men who rape them, since under the commodity model, the onus falls on Women to be "gatekeepers" of the  "commodity" in question and keep it it from becoming "too cheap" in the "marketplace".  And the resulting fear of rape (and blame/shame for it) is used as a cudgel to keep Women "in their place".
• And much like in Maragaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, patriarchy relies on Women to police each other (enter slut-shaming, body-shaming, the "mommy wars", etc.), further enhancing the divide-and-conquer aspect of The System.
• And just like financial capitalism, sexual capitalism functionally sets itself up as a contest to see who cares the least, in more ways than one.  A contest that MEN, not coincidentally, nearly always win.

And really it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this model perpetuates the 7000 year battle of the sexes, promotes rape culture (much like how financial capitalism promotes crimes motivated by money and possessions), and even contributes to the destruction of Mother Earth in the process via overpopulation and ecological overshoot.  Fortunately, the whole "commodity model" of sexuality is indeed currently dying as we speak, and that is a GOOD thing. Such an outmoded, outdated, toxic, and sexist paradigm is downright dehumanizing to both primary genders, and we would all better off without it. Sex is a mutual act, and it is time we started treating it as such. And marriage for economic reasons rather than love is becoming increasingly obsolete, as it should in an increasingly egalitarian society. And while marriage can be re-purposed for a post-patriarchal society, the idea that everybody must get married as the sine qua non of "real adulthood" is outmoded and no longer holds any real water in the 21st century.  Ditto for the whole "everybody must procreate" mentality as well, which is now downright maladaptive in a world of overpopulation and ecological overshoot. 

(Note that I while I condemn the commodity model, I do not intend to disparage any actual sex workers of any kind.  They are, after all, some of the most honest people on Earth when it comes to their intentions, and in any case are not the real problem here.  It is the "little man behind the curtain"--the system of patriarchy and capitalism--that is the real problem.)

This inherently capitalistic and patriarchal model should be regarded as obsolete and outmoded, and replaced yesterday with the "performance model" or "mutual pleasure model" of sexuality.  And thus sexual capitalism will also be humanely euthanized by giving it the one thing it cannot survive--ABUNDANCE.  So what are we waiting for?

Let the planetary healing begin! 

"Progress Debunked", Debunked

Philosopher (or, as he prefers to call himself, a recovered philosopher since his mystical experience years ago) Samuel Thomsen currently has a new book titled, Progress Debunked:  The Creation-Destruction Balance and Ancient Wisdom's Primacy.  And it is not merely the usual cynicism about progress that we hear ad nauseam in so many circles these days, since his thesis is actually quite intelligently formulated and articulated.  However even up-and-coming intellectual giants like Thomsen can still be fundamentally incorrect overall even if partially correct in some ways.

His thesis can best be summed up as follows:  1) The idea of progress, especially global progress, is logically incoherent and inconsistent, 2) what he terms "ancient wisdom" (i.e. our oldest traditions) has far more to offer than modern science and philosophy does, and 3) that "animate life thrives on a fertile balance of creation and destruction, joy and suffering, good and evil", as one reviewer succinctly and eloquently puts it.  He believes that our civilization will inevitably collapse for a variety of reasons, just like every other civilization before us.  And granted, he does indeed make some good points here and there.  But the one point that he misses turns out to be the most crucial one of all--the influence of patriarchy and the "dominator" paradigm that goes along with it.  The entire knowledge base (both ancient and modern) that is the foundation for his thesis orignated during a time when MEN have been in charge, and is thus tainted as result.

Garbage in, garbage out.  And a lot of linear thinking.

As Riane Eisler has noted in her book The Chalice and the Blade, patriarchy and the "dominator" model was NOT always the way.  In fact, it can be seen as a sort of aberration for the past few thousand years that is not at all timeless.  It has a beginning, a few thousand years ago, and it has an end, which will be coming very soon.  William Bond has further studied and refined the ideas of this development, as has Guru Rasa von Werder, along with others as well.  As all of the futurists are saying now, the future belongs to Women.  And Women will soon reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world.  Either that, or we all go extinct, basically.

And the late, great Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century must really be spinning in his grave due to Thomsen's tome as well.  Not only did he believe that Women should (and ultimately will) rule the world, but also that a world of abundance for all is certainly possible under what he calls the "feminine paradigm of leadership".  And the resources and technology to eradicate poverty worldwide, and with no further harm to the environment, certainly do exist, but the mostly male oligarchs in power now simply choose not to do so.  In their capricious zeal to use artificial scarcity to "lord it over" the rest of us, these oligarchs are willing to literally let the world burn before they share the wealth. As I like to say, mechanization is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites.

And lest anyone worry about the possibility that eradicating poverty worldwide will lead to a lack of natural selection and thus accumulation of deleterious genetic mutations, to that I say, just look around you.  There is clearly no shortage of candidates for Darwin Awards, and most of them seem to be above (sometimes well above) the poverty line.  Natural selection may be different, but it will most certainly still exist--as long as individual rights exist, at least.  (Self-determination can sometimes lead to self-termination.)  In fact, it reeks of first-world privilege to even consider worrying about such a thing at all.  And to quote Charles Darwin himself, in fact:

If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.

And those institutions, we have learned, are the very brainchildren of patriarchy:  capitalism, tyranny, oligarchy, and the scarcity mentality.  The latter of which especially, which rather ironically coexists with capitalism and patriarchy's addiction to growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell which eventually kills its host.  That includes both population growth (from treating Women like brood mares) as well as economic growth (from treating men--and often Women too--like work horses).  It is literally the logic of a Ponzi scheme, and those historically don't end very well.

The problem is quite literally man-made.  And now is NOT the time to give up on progress, since we can no longer afford to continue with the same obsolete ways of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.  Progress may not be linear, but it is literally our best (if not only) hope for the future.

So what are we waiting for?  Let the planetary healing begin!