never thought i would link those 2 together but here we are....also didn't know where to put an anomaly like this. if it should be in another forum please feel free to move it.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/what-the-handmaids-tale-can-teach-us-about-gender-inequality
For the first three paragraphs, the essay almost reads as if the Fraser Institute is going to make an argument for economic justice or some form of socialism. But its author realizes where the piece is going, and then flips it into the "Bizarro World" argument that...wait for it...Gilead is an evangelical form of SOVIET COMMUNISM!!!!!!
They make a point of working in references to Gilead having centralized planning(which it does, but it's centralized GENDER planning, not centralized economic planning, and there is nothing remotely similar to an egalitarian distribution of wealth)while, of course, perpetrating the canard that the political and feminist Left supports "centralized planning" on the Stalinist model.
Rather than admit that the issue is gender oppression, the essay ends up arguing that women would never have been oppressed at all if only...yes, wait for it again...free-market economic policy and a total lack of economic, labor, and environmental regulations were the order of the day.
Never mind the absurd implication that free-market capitalism actually had a positive, inclusive place for most women-or most LGBTQ people, or much of any people of color or immigrants, or that women were emancipated by reducing taxes on the wealthy.
As the Fraser Institute sees it, men never really oppress women-it's just "the dead hand of the state" oppressing "free individuals" blessed with "initiative" and "gumption" and all the other words J.C. Dithers shouts when he's kicking Dagwood out of a workplace nap.
good analysis Ken. not sure who JC Dithers or Dagwood is though.
is there anything the FI cant twist or expropriate?
good analysis Ken. not sure who JC Dithers or Dagwood is though.
is there anything the FI cant twist or expropriate?
good analysis Ken. not sure who JC Dithers or Dagwood is though.
is there anything the FI cant twist or expropriate?
Thanks, bekayne. I was posting an explanation on that last night, but my laptop glitched and at that point I was too tired to try to re-post.
Those two are from a comic strip called "Blondie", which has run in North American newspapers since the early 1930s and thus has a slapstick comedy attitude towards workplace violence that would not be accepted in a strip started anytime after the Seventies or so.
And no, quizzical, there isn't a damn thing FI wouldn't try to appropriate. At some point, they'll probably claim that Emma Goldman was the first Friedmanite and that Joe Hill and Ginger Goodwin would have supported "right to work" laws.
