Future societies will look back on economics as a kind of foolish male mysticism, and Marçal’s book anticipates the tone of their laughter.
Decided to read the article being quoted. The article itself is fine, but it makes the book sound very unappealing.
- We actually mentioned “GDP doesn’t cover unpaid within-household labor” and “GDP is weird about natural resources” in econ class, and this was a 1-semester Econ For Normal People class.
- “Is that what humans are: Homo Economicus?” No? That’s a name that’s different from “Homo sapiens” for a reason.
- I dislike the idea that my gender is fundamentally linked to collectivism and dependency. If this is what it means to be female, then send me testosterone pls.
The obvious solution is to abolish marriage as an institution where some people are expected to perform labor without compensation, and all other such institutions as well. Every worker deserves their reward, in whatever means of exchange they agree to with the person who benefits from their work.
And the book sounds sexist and gender-essentializing and while probably taking apart some stuff that needs to be taken apart, also grotesquely mischaracterizes a lot of stuff. It is also misgendering me as a “man” to which I will take exceptional levels of offense to.
Another article about it doesn’t help. Straw everywhere. Sounds like sneer culture. It seems to be approximately getting at the root of the problem (the working woman doesn’t get her pay because reasons) and shies off from the obvious implications (eradicate reasons, have the value-creators receive their pay) in favor of something vague which I’m worried would end up being “let’s use the state apparatus of violence to hurt promethea because money don’t real and economy don’t matter”.
There always seem to be undertones of “introduce mandatory maternal leave and make the ~employers~ pay for it” because what women need is totally a violently enforced structure making it economically rational to discriminate. But wait rationality don’t real so that’s why ~just commanding~ people to pay workers who don’t work will obviously work and it’s not like such laws have created a situation where asking people whether they are planning to have children is illegal and thus employers just discriminate indiscriminately against anyone who’s younger than 40 and looks like they might have a uterus.
(via ilzolende)
2 days ago · tagged #not my feminism #steel feminism · 23 notes · source: nostalgebraist · .permalink
raginrayguns liked this
bpd-anon reblogged this from ilzolende
trickytalks liked this
socialjusticemunchkin reblogged this from ilzolende and added:The obvious solution is to abolish marriage as an institution where some people are expected to perform labor without...
skaidi liked this
not-a-lizard liked this
flightandsundry reblogged this from ilzolende- flightandsundry liked this
lambdaphagy liked this
freelancejake liked this
wirehead-wannabe liked this
nostalgebraist said: i found the article very grating, i guess because the author seemed to buy the book’s message wholesale while lacking any sense of how much is at stake (given the impact of econ on the world) or that feminist economics has existed for a while (does this book contribute anything new or just popularize?)
91625 liked this
somnilogical liked this
ilzolende reblogged this from nostalgebraist and added:Decided to read the article being quoted. The article itself is fine, but it makes the book sound very unappealing. We...
serpent-moon liked this
metagorgon liked this
snarp liked this
eccentric-opinion liked this
molibdenita liked this
zeteticelench liked this
shacklesburst liked this
eka-mark liked this- nostalgebraist posted this