The Marrying Kind: (Ghettoization of the working class)

[Nay]

10. I think you have to look at the micro AND the macro. Most people just trying to get along in

the micro (who are the people I have been referring to) have to do whatever is necessary to preserve their sanity and the health of their families, no matter what some 1%ers have decided to do.

Individuals are not going to be influencing the macro EXCEPT by making individual choices that work for them in the here and now. If that means women straining to finish college, staying in oppressive jobs out of a sense of family responsibility, and having children without a man around, that's what will happen. If it means divorcing men who don't have work AND have the nerve to slack off at home while the wife's at work, that's what will happen. Talk about getting no respect! Maybe unemployed men would get the respect they crave if they simply did all the chores, childcare, and cooking they would expect from a wife who stayed home...without the man acting like such things are beneath him... just a thought! If the last 40 years of women's liberation hasn't even gotten a majority of men to realize that women are human, and that traditional women's work won't give men cooties, then the divide still remains between men and women outside of any 1%er shenanigans. If we are to present a solid wall of opposition to the 1%ers, it seems to me that men are the ones who have to heal this divide. I don't know what else women can do.

Although I'm a big proponent of healthy two-parent families that raise well-adjusted children, I don't think that's the be-all and end-all of culture. In fact, one positive (but unanticipated) result of the female head of household trend is that it helps break the back of male supremacy in relationships. It's just too bad it seems to take a whole breakdown of society before women can walk in the world as equal humans. And still your tweaker neighbor doesn't get it, and hollers for respect. Sadly, I don't think he is unusual.

Women, IMHO, are forcing the hand of at least one historically oppressive agent -- men who traditionally held women hostage with the male paycheck and male-only access to decent jobs. Granted, it's because the 1% has decided to impoverish everyone for their own gain, but that's not women's fault. In fact, it is overwhelmingly the fault of -- wealthy men.

It will indeed be a hard row to hoe to get your average Joe to even recognize his real enemy -- wealthy men -- because Joe really wants to BECOME a wealthy man, not shoot other wealthy men. If gun-totin' Joe really knew who his enemy was, there'd be a lot more dead bankers and a lot fewer dead wives/girlfriends/children. And that's a sad fact.

Back in the days of unions, Wobblies, and socialist parties, your average guy knew exactly who the enemy was because his culture told him. Until that union culture reassembles itself and provides a larger analysis and aggressive narrative to Joe so he can figure out who the bad guy is, he will be adrift. But hey, first Joe has to stop salivating over his worship of extreme individual self-reliance to even vote 'yes' to a union....how's that going?

I'm really not trying to be snarky, HiPoint. We agree on almost everything. I just don't see any compelling larger analysis out there, and even if one takes hold, I don't believe women will all of a sudden get respect and equal standing for their efforts to hold things together.