pelican,

Women don't only have the sexual power they also have the financial power. Something like 60-70% of divorces are initiated by women. They know that in a divorce they will get the house, kids...basically the lot. This means that women have enormous power in marriage and that men are disempowered. Men know that if the marriage breaks down they lose everything. This plays itself out daily in who gets what they want.

Then we get these 20 and 30 something women complaining that men won't commit. So we have this case where men don't want to get married because they know the odds are stacked against them and then when they do women still complain about......well, everything.

Pelican
Yes, that’s it in a nutshell. The basic value is freedom, not equality per se.

Jennifer
“We note a difference, and then we attach a value to that difference.”

Yes and for a very good reason - sexual difference makes a difference to reality. Even before a child is born, people rightly understand that a female is a member of the class who have babies, and men aren’t. This has consequences, durr. It’s not just arbitrary and capricious as you seem to imagine.

It’s not that some wicked class of exploiters out there is causing the social construction of gender. It’s that *you* by your behaviour and everyone else including all women are causing the devaluation of women’s work because you do *not* value the productivity of a baby, or a woman with a baby, as “equal” to the productivity of a man. There’s no reason why they should value them equally, for the bleeding obvious reason that they’re not equal.

The only possible way it could be as you are suggesting, is if people valued having-a-child as “equal” to not-having-a-child. But Jennifer, what would be an example of people valuing a baby as “equal to” not-a-baby? It doesn’t make sense. Give us an example, if you are not to be accused of arrant nincompoopery.

Therefore I have explained why it is, and you haven’t explained why it isn’t, rational and fair to distinguish the actual and potential difference that sex – not “gender” - makes to value.

As for your very funny idea that it is a peculiarity of capitalism that girls are valued for their looks and males for their accomplishments, when I related this to my wife she exclaimed with a horse laugh: “So traditional Indian peasants valued girls equally? They killed them! That’s barking mad!”

Yes sorry Jennifer, but that theory really is barking mad.

Wifey also said: “Can you imagine how deeply ingrained it is in the female psyche that someone should pay for their baby?”

Now there’s a better theory explaining Jennifer's argument!

Women in modern consumer society use the same value system as men. That means that everything is valued in monetary terms.

Capitalism is all about material gain and consumption, so that all members of society set their values according to how much of the action is attached to themselves. I have no doubt that both genders are exploited by capitalism - with the full approval of each.

I believe that instead of fashioning their own value system which gives credence to their role as mothers and nurturers, women have tried to have it both ways by juggling their reproductive responsibilities while trying to match it with the men in the cut and thrust of capitalist practice. The sexualisation of girls and women as eye candy is really just another commodity in a system that commodifies almost everything.

Imagine the shift in consciousness if women were to lead the way in affirming their strengths instead of attempting to go forward with a foot in both camps. I don't think it can be achieved in a capitalist society, as everything takes second place to profit and gain, and the kudos attached to "material success".

Poirot
Women have never had it so good. They have never been safer or lived longer, and almost all of that can be attributable to men.

There is now the situation of Marxist/feminists sitting in air-conditioned offices with carpet underfoot, and everything around them has been built or installed to a government standard to ensure it is as safe as possible.

But the Marxist/feminist can’t stop complaining.

“Women in modern consumer society use the same value system as men. That means that everything is valued in monetary terms.”

No it’s not. Only things that can be exchanged against money can be valued in monetary terms. When people fall in love, or have a baby, these things cannot be valued in money terms. Indeed in terms of money, they may and often do represent a loss. Therefore not everything of value is valued in money terms.

Indeed, nothing of ultimate importance can be valued in money terms, since money – the *medium* of exchange – can only be used as a *means* to satisfy given ends. Strictly speaking, it is only those *ends* that are the real locus of value.

Money does not provide a “value system”. It *enables* goods and services to be exchanged against a common medium of exchange, and it enables calculation in terms of that lowest common denominator, which would not be possible under barter.

“Capitalism is all about material gain and consumption, so that all members of society set their values according to how much of the action is attached to themselves.”

People set their values according to whatever they want. For example, at some stage, all people prefer to sacrifice material gain and consumption - what you’re calling “action” - in favour of increased leisure. Many people sacrifice greater income or career advancement for the benefits of being with their partner, being with their children, love, family life, etc. Therefore it is not true that people under capitalism invariably set their values according to material gain, nor that “capitalism” requires it.

“I have no doubt that both genders are exploited by capitalism - with the full approval of each.”

Well if they approve it’s not exploitation is it?

Men have enjoyed looking at the beauty of girls and women since before people were people; it’s hard-wired into our brains. There is no society in the history of the world, anywhere, ever, where this was not so. All the men who didn’t enjoy female beauty became extinct. To ascribe this enjoyment to “ capitalism” is ludicrous woolly thinking.

There is no reason why people should not enjoy female beauty, nor buy and sell goods and services which satisfy their want to enjoy it. The consent of the parties answers all questions of morality: there’s nothing exploitative about it. It’s an absurd argument to say it “commodifies” females - the buyer obtains no property right in any female as a result of the transaction. It’s literally as stupid as saying that women only go to cafes because they enjoy the “slavery” of the waiter.

What kind of insane Puritanism is it that castigates female beauty as being nothing but the tool of exploiters, and vilifies men for enjoying female beauty as dreadful beasts? What lemon-sucking, hateful, sexist, anti-life creed is this?

There is nothing wrong with women choosing either to work, if they want to, or stay at home and look after their children, if that’s what they want. And there’s nothing wrong with employers, seeing that women have babies, preferring to employ men, all other things being equal. Those who claim that women’s work is undervalued should go right ahead and employ women on the favourable terms they think right – and pay the costs themselves!

It is precisely the anti-capitalists arguing for laws to forcibly subsidise women's choices, who consider money more important than higher values such as human freedom and equality under law, and who devalue women!