Super-fascinating. Wow. That cooking has had such a big role in our physical & social evolution is very interesting & it makes perfect sense. As Homer used to say "The trines of beef were roasted by the fire and all had their fill." Dining out is one of the treats of civilization; so nice to have somebody else cook for us.
Women do so much for men - I would never in a million years deny that. But men do a lot for women too.
I eventually plan to take my anti-feminism in a more positive direction, towards some kind of Neo-Romanticism that places love, pleasure, and the appreciation of beauty at the centre of politics.
For now I feel it's more important to point out the problems with feminism. As long as feminists feel entitled to rip activist communities to shreds at the drop of a hat, we will keep spinning our wheels.
Good point! I'm going with no, but Britney Spears was until fairly recently, showing that slavery doesn't always look like we think it should!
Quote from a random article:
"Like millions last year, I followed Britney Spear’s Instagram in wonder. Tens of thousands of her fans fought for her freedom. The story of her conservatorship is chilling. Unlike most conservatees who can’t feed themselves (one of the requirements) for the 14 years of her quasi-imprisonment, she was making albums, headlining massive tours, and a Las Vegas residency, involved in every aspect of her productions. But her phone was monitored and often confiscated, her food intake controlled, she was forced to take psychiatric drugs several times a day and her contact with her friends sharply limited to the point where if she went to lunch at Iggy Azalea’s, say, a team would pre-search Iggy’s house. She had 24/7 security inside and outside and wasn’t allowed to drive. Or date. They forced an IUD into her so she wouldn’t get pregnant.
When she refused to perform anymore, they put her into a mental hospital and made her sit in a chair and not move for ten hours a day."
Shocking abuse of psychiatry! Apparently rumours about psychiatry kicking its dark past have been exaggerated...
I've been re-reading Stuart Chase's Tyranny of Words, so I thought I'd pull a Korzybski 'find the referent' on you...lol. What person (or thing) in what place at what time? Kind of like the game Clue. Professor Plum in the conservatory with the lead pipe. Referent in the referent with the referent. No abstract nouns there:)
On the Brittney story, I was aware of the drama, but reading up a bit I had no idea it was that severe. Some of her song titles obviously reflect her situation. 'Piece of Me.' 'Hold It Against Me.' 'Work Bitch.' Could it be more obvious? I also wonder if her single 'Perfume' wasn't a reference to the J-pop group 'Perfume' who are trapped in a similar vortex. No time for themselves, everyone wants a piece of you, singing about love when it's impossible to find any, all the while getting older wondering what you'll have left when it's all over. That would drive anyone nuts.
I can't help but notice the similarities to Taylor Swift though. Swift started her career at 14 (15 for Britney) both had religious upbringings, both super stars before they were 20. Not much room for anything else in their lives. Hundreds of people making a living off you, many of them just parasites. Britney is 8 years ahead of Taylor, so is that what Taylor has to look forward to, or is she made of stronger stuff? Guess we'll see.
I had friends in the music and film biz when I lived in Vancouver - not on the same level of course, but the same kind of BS. Some nice people of course, mostly on the technical side, but producers, actors, singers and musicians? Forget it. Narcissists one and all. No place for a young girl with stars in her eyes, that's for sure.
Could it be possible that both of them (Spears & Swift) are actually Monarchs? 'both had religious upbringings' - it's weird to think how a 14/15 year old girl with a 'religious upbringing' could be *allowed* to become a 'sexy' (read - kitten) pop star at that (under)age. To me it has MK-Ultra/Monarch written all over it....
Could be. There is a kind of weird overlap between the entertainment world and religion. Of course it could be a marketing ploy as well. Hard to say since much of American life is focused on religion. You're not going to get a very large audience if you come out as an atheist, that's for sure:)
I have to say I didn't consider the simple marketing ploy angle. You might be right there. Most pop nowadays is manufactured of course, so in that sense, being Monarchs isn't absolutely necessary for the powers-that-shouldn't-be...
There's an entire sub-culture of conspiracy analysts dedicated to uncovering the connection between pop music and the intelligence agencies, not without merit in some cases, but like almost everything these days they take it way too far. Many 60's counter-culture icons, for example, came from military families, which is not hard to understand when you consider how many people served in the military back then, and that many families lived on military bases where obviously their kids would hang out together and make music. Correlation is not causation as we scientists like to say, but it is easy to hang a conspiracy theory on.
That said, there's a definite attempt to steer popular culture in specific directions by our vested elites. This has always been true of course, it's just more noticeable today with the advent of mass media combined with the desperation to retain control of a rapidly decaying empire.
There are a lot of societies where infidelity is pretty widely accepted. According to David Graeber, who did his anthropological fieldwork there, infidelity was mostly accepted amongst most but not all ethnic groups in Madagascar. (He says one particular ethnic group, descended from Arabs, was famous for their jealous rages, which did frequently result in femicide.)
Interestingly, according to Richard Wrangham, pair-bonding marriage has more to do with co-feeding than with rights of sexual exclusivity. Although infidelity is common.
The Bellicose School likes to accuse sociobiologists/behaviour ecologists/hunter-gatherer specialists/the "Peace and Harmony Mafia" of romanticizing and idealizing "primitive life". But if you read ethnographies you'll see of that village life involves a lot of quarrelling and squabbling, which may escalate to violence but rarely to seriously consequential damage being done. I say this because people like me are constantly accused of "romanticizing indigenous people" (as if that's a bad thing) or "engaging in Noble Savage tropes" (guilty as guilty), but in reality we're fully aware that people are people and ALWAYS get on each other's nerves. A lot of squabbles are about infidelity... but nevertheless it happens anyway.
(Disclaimer - please don't over-generalize what I just said. There is very little that can be said about "indigenous societies" in general, other than they are adapted to their environments, share a language, have a sexual division of labour,, and banalities like that. The real message of the anthropological record is that the possibilities for human social organization are extremely vast. Vast, but not infinite. Nature applies limits. The Law of Nature is Adapt or Die.)
The following is taken from an ethnography of a nomadic tribe of hunter-gatherers in Bolivia called Nomads of the Long Bow. It was written in the 1940s so please pardon the politically incorrect language.
SEX AND THE LIFE CYCLE
THE Siriono say of a person in whom sexual desire is aroused that he is ecimbdsi. To be eéimbdsi is all right when sexual activity is confined to intercourse with one’s real spouses, and occasionally with one’s poten- tial spouses, but one who takes flagrant advantage of his sex rights over potential spouses to the neglect of
his real spouses is accused of being ecimbdsi in the sense of being promiscuous. Such accusations not in- frequently lead to fights and quarrels.
Romantic love is a concept foreign to the Siriono. Sex, like hunger, is a drive to be satisfied. Consequently it is neither much inhibited by attitudes of modesty and decorum, nor much enhanced by ideals of beauty and charm. The expression seéubi (“I like”) is applied indiscriminately to everything that is enjoyable, whether it be food to eat, a necklace to wear, or a woman to sleep with. There are, of course, certain ideals of erotic bliss, but under conditions of desire these readily break down, and the Siriono are content to conform to the principle of “any port in a storm.”
In general, men prefer young women io old. In speaking of their sexual affairs, men always express a fondness for a yukwdki (i.e., a girl of about the age of puberty), while they refer with distaste to akondémbi acikwa (literally, “tortoise rump,” i.e. awoman who is old and has a wrinkled rump like that ofa tortoise). The preference for youth is also clearly noticeable among the women, who on occasion have intercourse (obviously pleasurable) with their husbands’ younger brothers even before the latter show signs of puberty. Besides being young, a desirable sex partner—especially a woman—should also be fat. She should have
big hips, good-sized but firm breasts, and a deposit of fat on her sexual organs. Fat women are referred to by the men with obvious pride as eréN ekida (fat vulva) and are thought to be much more satisfying sexually than thin women, who are summarily dismissed as being ikdNgi (bony). In fact, so desirable is corpulence as a sexual trait that I have frequently heard men make up songs about the merits of a fat vulva. Unfortunately, I was never able to record them.
In addition to the criteria already mentioned, certain other physical signs of erotic beauty are also recognized. A tall person is preferred to a short one; facial features should be regular; eyes should be large. Little attention is paid to the ears, the nose, or the lips, unless they are obviously deformed. Body hair is an undesirable trait and is therefore depilated, although a certain amount of pubic hair is believed to add zest to intercourse. A woman's vulva should be small and fat, while a man’s penis should be as large as possible.
Although love is not idealized in any romantic way by the Siriono, a certain amount of affection does exist between the sexes. This is clearly reflected in the behavior that takes place around the hammock. Couples frequently indulge in such horseplay as scratching and pinching each other on the neck and chest, poking fingers in each other's eyes, and even in making passes at each other’s sexual organs. Lovers also spend hours in grooming one another—extracting lice from their hair or wood ticks from their bodies, and eating them; removing worms and spines from their skin; gluing feathers into their hair; and covering their faces with uruku (Bixa orellana) paint. This behavior often leads up to a sexual bout, especially when conditions for intercourse are favorable.
Sexual advances are generally made by the men, who employ various approaches to obtain their end, depending upon the circumstances existing at the moment. During the day, when there are people around, a man usually whispers his desires to awoman, and the couple steals off into the forest. If a man is out in the forest alone with a woman, however, he may throw her to the ground roughly and take his prize without so much as saying a word. During the night, when the Siriono do not venture out of their hut and when all sex activity takes place in the hammock, a man with desire simply waits until the house quiets down and then wakes up the woman with whom he wishes to have intercourse. At this time, of course, ex- tramarital relations almost never occur.
Much more intercourse takes place in the bush than in the house. The principal reason for this is that pri- vacy is almost impossible to obtain within the hut, where as many as fifty hammocks may be hung in the confined space of five hundred square feet. Moreover, the hammock of a man and his wife hangs not three feet from that of the former’s mother-in-law. Further- more, young children commonly sleep with the father and mother, so that there may be as many as 4 or 5 people crowded together in a single hammock. In addition to these frustrating circumstances, people are up and down most of the night, quieting children, cooking, eating, urinating, and defecating. All in all, therefore, the conditions for sexual behavior in the house are most unfavorable. Consequently intercourse is indulged in more often in some secluded nook in the forest.
Between married couples a good deal of sexual intercourse takes place in the late afternoon in the bush, near the water hole or stream upon which the band is camped. It is rarely indulged in more than once a day. When the afternoon meal has been eaten, and before retiring, couples often proceed to the water hole to bathe and, after bathing, indulge in sexual intercourse. Unmarried couples and potential spouses, of course, must take advantage of whatever opportunities arise. A favorite spot for sexual indulgence between poten- tial spouses, when there is one near the camp, is a patch of ripening maize, which is generally both near at hand and secluded.
The sexual act itself (nyeméno or tiki étiki) is a violent and rapid affair. There are few if any preliminaries. Kissing is unknown, but oral stimulation is not ab- sent; lovers have the habit of biting one another on the neck and chest during the sex act. Moreover, as the emotional intensity of coitus heightens to orgasm, lovers scratch each other on the neck, chest, and fore- head, so that they often emerge wounded from the fray. Although people are proud of them, these love scars sometimes cause trouble (in case of extramarital intercourse), because they are visible evidence of the infidelityofahusband orwife.
During coitus in the bush, the woman lies on her back on the ground with her legs spread apart and her knees flexed. The man rests his knees on the ground between her legs; his elbows also rest on the ground on both sides of her body, leaving his hands free for scratching activity. The male plays the most active role during coitus, moving on the woman with considerable force and rapidity. The woman, however,
does not remain completely passive, but adjusts her- .self to the movements of the man.
Emotional pitch is intense during coitus, which is often accompanied by farting, a habit from which considerable pleasure isapparently derived.
When intercourse takes place in the hammock the positions are essentially the same, but it is more diffi- cult to maneuver because of the added movement of the hammock. Sometimes during the height of the act a man’s knees slip through the strings of the hammock and his whole emotional set is disturbed. Informants frequently made jokes about their fellows in this re- spect. I even knew one man who injured himself rather seriously when his knee struck the ground.
Generally speaking, great freedom is allowed in -matters ofsex. Aman ispermitted tohave intercourse not only with his own wife or wives but also with her
(their) sisters, real and classificatory. Conversely, a woman is allowed to have intercourse not only with her husband but also with his brothers, real and clas- sificatory, and with the husbands and potential hus- bands of her own and classificatorysisters. Thus,apart from one’s real spouse, there may be as many as eight or ten potential spouses with whom one may have sex relations. There is,moreover, no taboo on sex relations between unmarried potential spouses, provided the .women haveundergonetheritesofmaturity. Virginity is not a virtue.
Consequently unmarried adults rarely, if ever, lack for sexual partners and frequently indulge in sex. In actual practice, sex relations between a man and his own brothers’ wives, and between a woman and her own sisters’ husbands, occur frequently and without censure, but intercourse with potential spouses more distantly related occurs less often and is apt to result in quarrels or lead to divorce.
Food is one of the best lures for obtaining extra- marital sex partners. A man often uses game as a means of seducing a potential wife, who otherwise might not yield to his demands. A concrete case will best illustrate the manner in which this is done. Aciba- eéko (Long-arm) had a potential wife, a classificatory cross-cousin, whom he had been trying to seduce for some time without success; she had consistently re- fused him her favors for fear of provoking a quarrel with her husband. One day, however, when there was little or no meat in camp and the woman’s husband was off on the hunt, Aciba-edko returned with his fam- ily from a chase on which he had been absent for several days and on which he had been successful in bagging considerable game, including a peccary which was very fat. His potential wife, being hungry, was most anxious to secure a share of the catch. She waited until Aciba-edko was alone—his wives had gone for palm cabbage and water—and approached him with the following request: “ma nde s6ri tai etima; sedidkwa” (“Give me a peccary leg; I am hungry’).
He replied, “éno, cuki ¢uki airdne” (“O.K., but first sexual intercourse”). She replied, “ti,manédi gadi (“No, afterward, no less”). He said, “ti, ndmo gadi” (“No, now, no less”), She replied, “eno, maNgitiP” (“O.K., where?”). He answered, “aiiti” (“There”),
pointing in the direction of the river. Both of them set out, by different routes, for the river, and returned, also by different routes, the woman carrying firewood, about half an hour later. He secured his prize; she, hers.
Of course, a man is often frustrated in his attempts to secure extramarital intercourse by the methods indicated above. Failures in this respect, however, re- sult not so much from a reluctance on the part of a woman to yield to the desires of a potential husband who will give her game, but more from an unwilling- ness on the part of the man’s own wife or wives to part with any of the meat that he has acquired, least of all to one of his potential wives. In general, the wife supervises the distribution of meat, so that if any part of her husband’s catch is missing she suspects him of carrying on an affair on the outside, which is grounds for dispute.
Consequently men try to pursue their extramarital intrigues as secretly as possible. In- stead of attempting to distribute meat to a potential wife after game has already been brought in from the forest, they may send in some small animal or a piece of game to the woman through an intermediary, and thus reward her for the favors they have already re- ceived or expect to receive in the future. I know of two such instances in which a woman’s brother played the role of messenger, and in a number of cases I too acted as agent for two lovers who were having diffi- culty in carrying out their affair. Fortunately, I was seldom suspected of collusion.
Fights and quarrels over sex are common but occur less often than fights over food. As has already been mentioned, such quarrels arise largely as a result of too frequent intercourse with a potential spouse to the neglect of the actual spouse; this is really what adultery amounts to among the Siriono. However much men are chided by their wives for deceiving them sexually, this seems to have little effect on their behavior, for they are constantly on the alert for a chance to seduce a potential wife with whom they have not had sexual relations, or to carry on an affair with a yukwdki (young girl) who has passed through the rites of puberty. In plural marriages, however, I rarely noted pronounced sexual jealousy between the wives, possibly because most plural marriages are of the sororal type.
In all sexual relations, basic incest taboos must be strictly observed. That is to say, it is strictly forbidden to have sexual intercourse with any member of one’s nuclear family, except one’s spouse. Among the Siriono these incest taboos are generalized to include non- family members who are designated by the same kinship term as those used for members of the nuclear family. Consequently one may not have sexual re- lations with a parallel cousin, with the child of a sib- ling of the same sex, with the child of a parallel cousin of the same sex, with a sister or parallel cousin of the mother, with a brother or parallel cousin of the father, or with the child of anyone whom one calls “potential spouse.” In addition to these taboos, which are Clearly reflected in the kinship system, sex rela- tions with the following relatives are also regarded as incestuous: grandparent and grandchild, parent-in-law
and child-in-law, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, a woman and her mother’s brother’s son, and a man and his father’s sister’s daughter.
Violations of incest taboos are believed to be pun- ished by the supernatural sanction of sickness and death. However, I never heard of a case of incest occurring among the Siriono, even in mythology. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the sex drive is rarely frustrated to such an extent that one is tempted to commit incest.
Atypical sex behavior is also rare. I heard of no cases of rape, i.e., of intercourse with a girl who had not yet undergone the rites of puberty. When 4 man uses a certain amount of force in seducing a potential spouse who has passed through the rites of puberty, this isnot regarded as rape.
Masturbation is likewise not a common juvenile pastime, and I never heard of it being practiced by adults. Children, especially boys, however, finger their genitals a great deal without censure, and when they are young their parents masturbate them frequently. Among the men the pattern of fingering the penis, especially tugging on the foreskin, carries on into adult life. Since it occurs most frequently when they are standing around, itisprobably an automatic reaction to anxiety; when a Siriono is worried, he usually has hold of his penis.
In so far as I could tell, only one man showed any tendency toward homosexuality, but this never reached the point of overt expression. By his fellows he was regarded more as a woman than as a man. He had never had a wife and spent most of his time with the women. He lived next to his only brother, was re- garded as harmless, and made his living largely by col- lecting and trading some of his products for meat. I was able to get almost no information‘from or about
him.
Only one other case of sexual perversion came to my attention, and this was of a man called Etémi (Lazy). Besides being what his name suggests, Etémi had, according to the women, a sadistic mania for wounding them on the breasts during sexual inter- course. Consequently they would have nothing to do with him. He had no wife and was most uncommunicative. His favorite pastime—the reason for his nick- name—was resting, which he managed to do a great deal of by the following ingenious device. He was an expert at tracking tortoises. He would gather as many as ten of them at a time and hang them up alive on a beam in the house. He would then butcher one or two each day, meanwhile resting in his ham- mock, until the supply was gone. He spent long pe- riods of time alone in the forest, and was one of the few Siriono out of whom I could worm no information whatsoever.
Chastity not being a virtue, there are few occasions - when sex is taboo among the Siriono. During men- struation sex relations are forbidden, but during preg-
nancy they are recommended and indulged in up until shortly before delivery. Following childbirth, a woman refrains from intercourse for about a month, but there is no prescribed period after delivery during which she must abstain. Following the death of a spouse, a widow or widower may resume sex rela- tions within a matter of three days. There are, moreover, no other ritual or ceremonial occasions when adults are restricted from participation in sexual activity.
This is just utterly perfect material for a bawdy farcical comedy. If only the 'Carry On...' team had heard of all this. I kind of had the Benny Hill music going around my head the whole time.
Agreed! I feel this should apply to sexual minorities as well... I'm not against people making choices outside the norm, but I actually do think that there does need to be a certain Normal as a basis for society producing the next generation of humans.
That normal seems to involve pair-bonded couples practicing what the anthropologist Sarah Hrdy calls "cooperative breeding" - basically co-parenting.
Interesting, a way of life characterized by long-term pair-bonding does not necessarily imply monogamy. In many societies extramarital sex is normal and accepted. I think that historically a lot of bisexual men would have gotten their gay kicks outside of marriage, and there are women who will accept such arrangements. LGBT activists would have you believe that men who were "forced to live in the closet" were terribly oppressed, but biology provides some inconvenience here - many gay men would like to have children, but same-sex partnerships do not produce babies. They therefore need to resort to more complicated arrangements to procure infants. This is possible for some people, especially if they are well-off, but it seems unlikely that gay adoption could scale up to meet demand without creating a market for human infants.
And I think that there are extremely good reasons for the taboo against buying and selling human beings..
A lot of people have to pretend they are something else due to societal pressures to conform to stereotypes. I know people who had to leave their home towns because they couldn't stand the looks people gave them, and the remarks they got, just because they loved men, not women. "We are mostly like this, but some of us aren't, and that is fine" would be a nicer place to be.
And yes, putting anything in a market degrades it. Life is a gift, and should be treated as such.
Thanks! If you're interested in the subject, both Against the Grain (by James C. Scott) and Catching Fire (by Richard Wrangham) are highly recommended. Both very compact, nutrient-dense books. Both are authoritative and leave little to doubt - in both cases the main theses are easy to accept... I'm a highly contrarian person yet I accept both arguments nearly in their totality!
What is the last feminist text you've read? What do you mean by feminism and why do you hate it so much?
The basic premise of original feminism (not libfem which prioritizes men) is that women are human. Why is this such a terrible thing to learn and act upon? Why is it so frightening to men? Why does it make men want to dehumanize and kill women even more than ever? Or what exactly is causing men to kill women so much? (Two - three/wk in Canada. World wide 137 women/day are killed by their male intimate partners.)
I'm currently reading Mothers and Others by Sarah Hrdy, arguably the most important feminist book written in the last quarter-century. I highly recommend it!
My views might make more sense in the context of woke feminists playing a huge role in destroying the anarchist movement in Canada. I personally know at three anarchist men who died after being victimized by the woke mob, in which feminists are always over-represented.
I'm not against feminism as a political movement for gender egalitarianism, as I believe I make clear in this piece. I think feminism has lost the plot. In Canada feminism was co-opted by Trudeau's Liberals. I am calling for a new wave of feminism, although I argue that a movement for political equality must allow men to express their opinions about gender relations. The "sit down and shut up" era is over. Or at least it should be.
My argument can be summarized like this - feminism has lost its moral high ground, and must return to first principles. I agree with the first principles of feminism as I understand them, though of course feminism means a lot of different things to different people. Originally, feminism was inspired by the indigenous critique and was bound up with early anarchists (see Mary Wollstonecraft, George Godwin, Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley).
Also, 2 women killed per week in Canada is 104. If it were three, that would be 156. Average those two number out and you get 130.
The current population of Canada is 38,972,375 as of Thursday, February 1, 2024, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data.
So if we assume that 50% of people are female, your chances of being murdered by your male partner are about 1 in 150,000. And women do kill men too, you know. Historically, women have preferring poisoning their male partners than killing them in a fit of rage.
Given that I am not a utopian and do not think that violence can ever be fully eliminated, that seems to be a reasonable level of violence. A much bigger problem is the opiate crisis.
I hope that doesn't sound insensitive, but feminists tend to exaggerate how bad men are. Given that feminists these days seem to unanimously believe in the presumption of guilt (that's what the BELIEVE SURVIVORS, EVEN IF THEY'RE LIARS moral imperative amounts to), it is now necessary for men to break the taboo against contradicting feminists.
"I hope that doesn't sound insensitive, but feminists tend to exaggerate how bad men are."
Example: I'm driving down the 401 freeway (Ontario) with my staunchly feminist mother (who never misses an opportunity to express her views) when we come upon a heavy truck on the shoulder with a police car behind it, lights on.
"Serves him right" she says. First default assumption: all truck drivers are men. So I let that one go, but I said "serves him right for what?" "For speeding" Second default assumption. So then I lost it, because hey Mom, did you forget that I'm a truck driver too?
So I pointed out to her that what was actually happening was the truck had broken down, and the cop was using his/her cruiser to indicate a road hazard. How do I know this? Because a cop doesn't stop behind a truck and walk 60 feet to the cab with his/her back to traffic to issue a ticket. They stop in FRONT, where there's less chance of being hit by a passing car. She wouldn't know this of course because she's never driven a truck.
Well that humbled her for a moment, but you'll never knock her off her perch, which basically says that men are the cause of all the world's problems. Not some men, ALL. Well, except me and my brother I suppose, although I'm not sure about him....lol.
Almost forgot, which I also forgot at the time. The speed limit on that section of the 401 is 110 km/hr. Most trucks can't go that fast, and even 10km over won't usually get you a ticket. Oh, and the truck was on an upgrade as well..lol.
Mind if I butt in here? My main objection to feminism is that it does the same thing to men as men do to women...i.e. it objectifies them. Describes them as a class with predefined attributes instead of as individuals with their own particular traits. Look at what you wrote for example: "Why is it so frightening to men? Why does it make men want to dehumanize and kill women even more than ever?"
Assuming you have a factual basis for that statement, how does it advance your cause by attributing that behaviour to men as a class? If true, then shouldn't you break it down a bit more, study it as a phenomenon in its own right, rather than attributing the behaviour to *all* men?
This kind of rhetoric put me off feminism years ago, which is why I avoid women who define themselves in these terms. Note, I don't dismiss their concerns, I just don't think it's a constructive way to go about addressing them. I also have to agree with Nevermore, at least in the sense that the movement has been co-opted. This tends to happen to movements I've noticed, which is why I avoid them and don't define myself using their language and terminology. I take people (which includes women) as individuals. Some are awesome, some are a pain in the ass, some are a direct threat. Sorting out who's who takes more effort than dismissing them as members of a class, but I think it's worth the effort. OTOH, when I see a crowd start to form around anything, I tend to back away, because unfortunately humans are more susceptible to emotion than they are to reason, which leaves them open to manipulation by people whose motives, more often than not, are at odds with whatever basic principles the movement started out with.
How do you define unpaid labour? If you mean housework, how is that not paid, considering the quid-pro-quo is a roof over her head, food on the table and the clothes on her back? Granted no money changes hands, but the functional equivalent is embedded in the arrangement. I suppose you could argue she's underpaid, but that only holds up if the husband has complete control of the family finances. True in some cases, but not in ours. My wife stays home and does home related work. I bring home a paycheck and give it to her which she puts in a joint account. I trust her to manage our budget and whatever she needs, including personal needs or wants, she doesn't have to ask. If I need money I ask her for it. She also keeps the books, the only thing I ask is that she warns me if we're cash flow negative. Incidentally, she's Japanese and quite happy with the arrangement as that's how it's done in Japan. Am I exploiting her? She doesn't think so. Someone with a chip on their shoulder might think so, but frankly, that's none of their business.
".....“A New History of Humanity”, which I think is deeply flawed."
I've just started reading that book, and as I usually do, I went straight to the last chapter to see what sort of conclusions the authors present. You can often tell from the last chapter whether a book is worth reading or not, and I found the summary of key arguments quite good, so now I'm reading chapter one, which also seems quite good. Not too many abstractions, considering the broad scope of the project, and a fairly good introduction on what to expect.
It will take me a while to get through it, not just because of the size, but because I tend to read several books in parallel. So rather than wait, and potentially forget, I'll ask you now. Can you be more specific on what your objections are - perhaps point me to the chapters where you feel they went off the rails? I've seen nothing so far to suggest this is anything but a first-rate work, but as I said, I'm only as far as chapter one.
What would the purpose be? You would have to attribute motive, but one of the ACTUAL results is that it is making everyone fight each other – even within a nation, even within a family, even within the smallest atom of society, a single relationship -- and therefore have no structure, not even at the very first iteration, to form any counterpoint of power against corporatists and hierarchy. It’s beyond “Resistance is futile”, it is that there is no Resistance whatsoever, as why would you resist, for who, WITH who, and why? Family structure and relationship is the very premise of resisting, and/or creating a better life. And for everyone, man and woman alike, both for themselves, and if you wish, defending and fighting to support or aid the other as well. Whether for charity or self-interest it does not matter, without it, there IS no resistance, nor any possible, from anyone, ever.
Being in relationship, and also relationship from children, is also what it means to be human. And that is what is being removed by misrepresenting history and causing this attack...on each other.
Now is all that for a Pro-Anarchist, ideal world, or against?
Sorry I can't put 50 years of academic research into one post. I didn't even know for many years, constantly saying "Huh", "That's odd," "There's an exception" until the exceptions are larger than the story. But I'm saying, if all the sociology and history research turns out to be this off, how likely is it evolutionary sociology is any better or less in service of their biases? A bias they may not know they have, as it's based on sociology and history classes I and everyone had, that turned out were not very true?
Let's make three points: One, if you at the source data, none of what we believe happened between the sexes is correct. That gives us a shattered telescope with which to attempt to view, not only the past, but the present.
Two, if that is correct, that previous research was astonishing biased, bent, and incorrect, often intentionally, then how can we assume this paleo/evolutionary/archeological story the experts you cite isn't similarly broken, bent, and entirely mistaken?
Three, even IF they are not at all intentionally biased -- and that is mostly the case -- they were raised in the same entirely incorrect paradigm of mischaracterized source material that you and I were. Therefore, although not INTENTIONALLY bad, it may yet be just as nearly mistaken.
Question: when those three things appear to be true, how do we proceed? You and I don't know what happened and we can't depend on experts who apparently don't know what happened, either intentionally for an agenda (often) or unintentionally because of their own current or historical biases? Yet we cannot crack the book on reading adequate source material to form a wide enough view as any single individual.
How does this affect or entirely discard your entire premise, or the possibility of being able to form a premise? This is not a specific criticism, as I can see you were extraordinarily careful in the basis of your argument.
It's hard not to be triggered by this, when the mass of anyone you talk to is so appalling, amazing, and proudly ignorant of all history. And it's incredibly obvious, and is in every book, and everyone knew this until like 20 years ago. For instance, "Women are stuck with the cooking and kids, as a slave." Okay, many parts to that: one WHO is doing this? I read this daily when no one has expected women to do this in generations, before I was born. I ask, like "Who the heck are all you women talking to???" I've never once heard a MAN say that, and I get around to meet all types. Yet it seems universally accepted that "Men" are doing this to women...without saying anything I guess? Just like men don't care it women wear high heels, they'd rather they were fun and happy, yet other WOMEN tell them to?
Next, in history, they have the most incredible, demented view of like every year ever since before 1972. There's a book called "Magdeline and Balthazar" based on the letters of 15thc married couple. In it, exactly the types they rail against: she's at home, he's out in the world of merchants. Except: HE is out in the weather, very likely to die at any time, and indeed to make trading fairs, they expect very likely to be robbed and murdered yearly. She is safe at home. Protected. As priceless. NOT put on the road to be murdered in the snows of January. Which do you prefer? And home with the kids? Yes. She was. And then the kids were safe too, since she has breasts and he doesn't. BUT: what we doing at home? She was RUNNING THE INTERNATIONAL IMPORT CORPORATION for him. That is, he might be technically CEO, with his/their family, but she was running everything for whatever time he was gone. So you see, exactly as Feminists portray it, and EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they imply.
They would say, imply again, that 100% of all wives are enslaved, raped and abused before 1972. Just ask. Bring up any of these subjects and you'll instantly hear men and women leap to say so. ON WHAT BASIS? Any stats would say violence and domestic abuse is higher than ever, among both sexes, and like 60% of domestic violence is women on men. Because no one will do anything, and men are so worthless she, her friends, his friends, both families, police, and every court will laugh at him and tell him to shut up and take it. Nor is that stat any different among lesbian couples. In addition, women are now MORE UNHAPPY THAN EVER IN HISTORY. ...Or at least since we've been keeping records, and it's been a straight-line down since 1972. ...And also men. Yet they think this is a win and want to do more of...whatever this is, let's not jump to conclusions, but it CLEARLY states that the "modern" approach is SHARPLY and PROVABLY inferior for BOTH sexes than even the terrible conditions they pre-supposed existed before.
So again, they say in history that men hit women. Okay, yes. AND WOMEN HIT MEN all the time and was considered just as funny then, where men had no recourse then, straight back to Chaucer and before. But since men don't matter, they don't exist as humans, only the WOMEN in the story matter. ...Or that's what the orientation of their argument tells me.
The historical focus also tends to be exclusively on people written about: the incredibly rich, 0.001%. That's like watching what NY and Paris Supermodels are like and saying that's the same for Hotel Maids. Like, incredibly, unbelievably off the mark. The lower classes, at least straight through the middle ages and therefore extremely likely in Rome, acted just like we do today. Having affairs. Wife swapping. Annulling. Guy moves to the next town, everyone knows it, and is considered "divorce". Premarital sex. Shotgun weddings. No weddings at all. In Chaucer or in Scotland, eg where they "Published the bans" that is, "Announced the wedding three times" by shouting out the front door, back door, front door, and boom, the judge or priest said you were married. 10,000 songs about women knocked up by a traveling soldier. Who is then looked down upon and chanced. ...All of which is exactly like now? 10,001 songs about men pining for a woman, risking life in war and returning to find she's wed another? Just like now? I can't look at a Wikipedia article but the person had a divorce from 1890-1972 during a time supposedly there was "no divorce"? Because women were slaves but also everyone was divorcing for sport? "The Opposite Sex" 1956, instant, for-fun divorce, based on a 1930 book, so therefore already common in the 1920s? It's totally different but also totally the same? Anyway, the super-ultra rich like Elon or Hillary are no, not good examples of the cultural norms of everyday life. They make up exceptions for themselves at will like Henry VIII.
This goes on and on through other history, say Iroquois life, said to be matrilinial. Same projections, same (intentional?) misunderstandings, same come-to-find-out-they-acted-just-like-us. If only somebody would read a book and ask.
Yet we have this discussions where one side is unarmed, completely unaware, have been fed an entirely false view of all human history, and never bothered to check the original source records, easily found.
Example? Like "the Burning Times" which also never happened when they went to look. I guess the original liars, publishing a totally bent paper should have known that would attract a lot of attention and people, later feminists, would go check. Or t he number of medieval women guild members when they went to look, was like 1/3rd. It was right there. And that makes them small business owners, or large. And therefore owned and commanded large sums of property. And that means not individually, but also collectively, being themselves aware of all the OTHER women in town. But I see it published that women weren't allowed to have bank accounts until like 2000 or something when my mother worked in a bank in 1968 and it was already unheard-of for a woman not to have one then for generations. Like my very question to her was one of "What are you: stupid??? OF COURSE all women had bank accounts. Or could. Between 1940 and 1960 when she grew up no one even REMEMBERS when they couldn't." But published today, that never happened. We teach it in school. We just make it up. And then wonder why these discussions are so confusing, triggering, and fraught with misunderstandings.
So when that is true, I don't even know how to unwrap the questions you're asking. It's possible or likely all these evolutionary researches are equally disingenuous, and also that you're talking to an audience or culture who can't hear that as their entire worldview is based on events and circumstances that are lies. Fictions. Never happened. Or not the way they think. And why? Back to the purpose of this entire blog, TO PERPETUATE THE POWER AND EXTRACTION OF THE POWERFUL. Over the rest of us. Doesn't it seem weird they would pay huge sums to these schools for this research with then "Resists" "Rebels" and topples them? What are the odds? Slim? Or none?
Like you not hearing this until 36 (an impossibility without specific intent) I also didn't hear about this until, like you from the common academic, historical view, you just wander in, la de da, and look at the source material out of pure curiosity, because of course you would, and discover, step by agonizing step, that none of it was real. Not everyone does that, or is willing to SEE when they do. It's career and marriage ending. To tell the truth. Of the original, easily-available, source material. Thanks!
Yes. I've learned it's better to have an abusive husband that let's you be a mother than tell on the monster and am threatened all the time. Honestly I feel like Thomas Jefferson was nicer to Sally than the men in my family and husband are to me and I can prove it so. I'm just one of millions. Women enslave each other too to please men no matter what demographic. It is what it is.
Okay. I sometimes find the word "slavery" unsatisfactory because types of unfree labour vary considerably. Some kinds of slavery might have been preferable to certain kinds of wage-labour that landless peasants/proletarians were forced by economic reality to perform...
The word "slavery" implies that slavery is the worst type of economic status that a person can have but that's actually debatable. Institutions of slavery vary.
If a societal expectation forces women to do unpaid labour, such as domestic chores, that could be considered slavery if we define slave-labour by its simplest possible definition, which would be mandatory unpaid unpaid.
This might be stretching the mandatory/voluntary binary too far, though. Every time I take a shit, I wipe my ass. Is that mandatory or voluntary? Technically, voluntary, although I might suffer social consequences if I didn't do it.
But breathing is made "mandatory" by biology/God/nature. If you don't breathe, you will die. Does that make breathing mandatory? I would argue yes.
Okay, I'm abandoning this train of thought, which probably never should have left the station.
I'll post this comment anyway, though, in the hope it is entertaining to someone.
Depends what you mean. It can be a helpful term or not depending on the situation. To compare an entry-level service worker in Toronto to an African slave exported to a Caribbean plantation would be insensitive... but both are economically exploited.
Super-fascinating. Wow. That cooking has had such a big role in our physical & social evolution is very interesting & it makes perfect sense. As Homer used to say "The trines of beef were roasted by the fire and all had their fill." Dining out is one of the treats of civilization; so nice to have somebody else cook for us.
Thank you. 🌲🙏🌲
Like everything else, the pendulum swung wide to either side. We need a balance point.
Amen to that.
Women do so much for men - I would never in a million years deny that. But men do a lot for women too.
I eventually plan to take my anti-feminism in a more positive direction, towards some kind of Neo-Romanticism that places love, pleasure, and the appreciation of beauty at the centre of politics.
For now I feel it's more important to point out the problems with feminism. As long as feminists feel entitled to rip activist communities to shreds at the drop of a hat, we will keep spinning our wheels.
"Are women slaves?"
Which women, where and when?
Is Taylor Swift a slave?
Good point! I'm going with no, but Britney Spears was until fairly recently, showing that slavery doesn't always look like we think it should!
Quote from a random article:
"Like millions last year, I followed Britney Spear’s Instagram in wonder. Tens of thousands of her fans fought for her freedom. The story of her conservatorship is chilling. Unlike most conservatees who can’t feed themselves (one of the requirements) for the 14 years of her quasi-imprisonment, she was making albums, headlining massive tours, and a Las Vegas residency, involved in every aspect of her productions. But her phone was monitored and often confiscated, her food intake controlled, she was forced to take psychiatric drugs several times a day and her contact with her friends sharply limited to the point where if she went to lunch at Iggy Azalea’s, say, a team would pre-search Iggy’s house. She had 24/7 security inside and outside and wasn’t allowed to drive. Or date. They forced an IUD into her so she wouldn’t get pregnant.
When she refused to perform anymore, they put her into a mental hospital and made her sit in a chair and not move for ten hours a day."
Shocking abuse of psychiatry! Apparently rumours about psychiatry kicking its dark past have been exaggerated...
I've been re-reading Stuart Chase's Tyranny of Words, so I thought I'd pull a Korzybski 'find the referent' on you...lol. What person (or thing) in what place at what time? Kind of like the game Clue. Professor Plum in the conservatory with the lead pipe. Referent in the referent with the referent. No abstract nouns there:)
On the Brittney story, I was aware of the drama, but reading up a bit I had no idea it was that severe. Some of her song titles obviously reflect her situation. 'Piece of Me.' 'Hold It Against Me.' 'Work Bitch.' Could it be more obvious? I also wonder if her single 'Perfume' wasn't a reference to the J-pop group 'Perfume' who are trapped in a similar vortex. No time for themselves, everyone wants a piece of you, singing about love when it's impossible to find any, all the while getting older wondering what you'll have left when it's all over. That would drive anyone nuts.
I can't help but notice the similarities to Taylor Swift though. Swift started her career at 14 (15 for Britney) both had religious upbringings, both super stars before they were 20. Not much room for anything else in their lives. Hundreds of people making a living off you, many of them just parasites. Britney is 8 years ahead of Taylor, so is that what Taylor has to look forward to, or is she made of stronger stuff? Guess we'll see.
I had friends in the music and film biz when I lived in Vancouver - not on the same level of course, but the same kind of BS. Some nice people of course, mostly on the technical side, but producers, actors, singers and musicians? Forget it. Narcissists one and all. No place for a young girl with stars in her eyes, that's for sure.
Could it be possible that both of them (Spears & Swift) are actually Monarchs? 'both had religious upbringings' - it's weird to think how a 14/15 year old girl with a 'religious upbringing' could be *allowed* to become a 'sexy' (read - kitten) pop star at that (under)age. To me it has MK-Ultra/Monarch written all over it....
Could be. There is a kind of weird overlap between the entertainment world and religion. Of course it could be a marketing ploy as well. Hard to say since much of American life is focused on religion. You're not going to get a very large audience if you come out as an atheist, that's for sure:)
I have to say I didn't consider the simple marketing ploy angle. You might be right there. Most pop nowadays is manufactured of course, so in that sense, being Monarchs isn't absolutely necessary for the powers-that-shouldn't-be...
There's an entire sub-culture of conspiracy analysts dedicated to uncovering the connection between pop music and the intelligence agencies, not without merit in some cases, but like almost everything these days they take it way too far. Many 60's counter-culture icons, for example, came from military families, which is not hard to understand when you consider how many people served in the military back then, and that many families lived on military bases where obviously their kids would hang out together and make music. Correlation is not causation as we scientists like to say, but it is easy to hang a conspiracy theory on.
That said, there's a definite attempt to steer popular culture in specific directions by our vested elites. This has always been true of course, it's just more noticeable today with the advent of mass media combined with the desperation to retain control of a rapidly decaying empire.
In which societies does male only infidelity not lead to breakups?
There are a lot of societies where infidelity is pretty widely accepted. According to David Graeber, who did his anthropological fieldwork there, infidelity was mostly accepted amongst most but not all ethnic groups in Madagascar. (He says one particular ethnic group, descended from Arabs, was famous for their jealous rages, which did frequently result in femicide.)
Interestingly, according to Richard Wrangham, pair-bonding marriage has more to do with co-feeding than with rights of sexual exclusivity. Although infidelity is common.
The Bellicose School likes to accuse sociobiologists/behaviour ecologists/hunter-gatherer specialists/the "Peace and Harmony Mafia" of romanticizing and idealizing "primitive life". But if you read ethnographies you'll see of that village life involves a lot of quarrelling and squabbling, which may escalate to violence but rarely to seriously consequential damage being done. I say this because people like me are constantly accused of "romanticizing indigenous people" (as if that's a bad thing) or "engaging in Noble Savage tropes" (guilty as guilty), but in reality we're fully aware that people are people and ALWAYS get on each other's nerves. A lot of squabbles are about infidelity... but nevertheless it happens anyway.
(Disclaimer - please don't over-generalize what I just said. There is very little that can be said about "indigenous societies" in general, other than they are adapted to their environments, share a language, have a sexual division of labour,, and banalities like that. The real message of the anthropological record is that the possibilities for human social organization are extremely vast. Vast, but not infinite. Nature applies limits. The Law of Nature is Adapt or Die.)
The following is taken from an ethnography of a nomadic tribe of hunter-gatherers in Bolivia called Nomads of the Long Bow. It was written in the 1940s so please pardon the politically incorrect language.
SEX AND THE LIFE CYCLE
THE Siriono say of a person in whom sexual desire is aroused that he is ecimbdsi. To be eéimbdsi is all right when sexual activity is confined to intercourse with one’s real spouses, and occasionally with one’s poten- tial spouses, but one who takes flagrant advantage of his sex rights over potential spouses to the neglect of
his real spouses is accused of being ecimbdsi in the sense of being promiscuous. Such accusations not in- frequently lead to fights and quarrels.
Romantic love is a concept foreign to the Siriono. Sex, like hunger, is a drive to be satisfied. Consequently it is neither much inhibited by attitudes of modesty and decorum, nor much enhanced by ideals of beauty and charm. The expression seéubi (“I like”) is applied indiscriminately to everything that is enjoyable, whether it be food to eat, a necklace to wear, or a woman to sleep with. There are, of course, certain ideals of erotic bliss, but under conditions of desire these readily break down, and the Siriono are content to conform to the principle of “any port in a storm.”
In general, men prefer young women io old. In speaking of their sexual affairs, men always express a fondness for a yukwdki (i.e., a girl of about the age of puberty), while they refer with distaste to akondémbi acikwa (literally, “tortoise rump,” i.e. awoman who is old and has a wrinkled rump like that ofa tortoise). The preference for youth is also clearly noticeable among the women, who on occasion have intercourse (obviously pleasurable) with their husbands’ younger brothers even before the latter show signs of puberty. Besides being young, a desirable sex partner—especially a woman—should also be fat. She should have
big hips, good-sized but firm breasts, and a deposit of fat on her sexual organs. Fat women are referred to by the men with obvious pride as eréN ekida (fat vulva) and are thought to be much more satisfying sexually than thin women, who are summarily dismissed as being ikdNgi (bony). In fact, so desirable is corpulence as a sexual trait that I have frequently heard men make up songs about the merits of a fat vulva. Unfortunately, I was never able to record them.
In addition to the criteria already mentioned, certain other physical signs of erotic beauty are also recognized. A tall person is preferred to a short one; facial features should be regular; eyes should be large. Little attention is paid to the ears, the nose, or the lips, unless they are obviously deformed. Body hair is an undesirable trait and is therefore depilated, although a certain amount of pubic hair is believed to add zest to intercourse. A woman's vulva should be small and fat, while a man’s penis should be as large as possible.
Although love is not idealized in any romantic way by the Siriono, a certain amount of affection does exist between the sexes. This is clearly reflected in the behavior that takes place around the hammock. Couples frequently indulge in such horseplay as scratching and pinching each other on the neck and chest, poking fingers in each other's eyes, and even in making passes at each other’s sexual organs. Lovers also spend hours in grooming one another—extracting lice from their hair or wood ticks from their bodies, and eating them; removing worms and spines from their skin; gluing feathers into their hair; and covering their faces with uruku (Bixa orellana) paint. This behavior often leads up to a sexual bout, especially when conditions for intercourse are favorable.
Sexual advances are generally made by the men, who employ various approaches to obtain their end, depending upon the circumstances existing at the moment. During the day, when there are people around, a man usually whispers his desires to awoman, and the couple steals off into the forest. If a man is out in the forest alone with a woman, however, he may throw her to the ground roughly and take his prize without so much as saying a word. During the night, when the Siriono do not venture out of their hut and when all sex activity takes place in the hammock, a man with desire simply waits until the house quiets down and then wakes up the woman with whom he wishes to have intercourse. At this time, of course, ex- tramarital relations almost never occur.
Much more intercourse takes place in the bush than in the house. The principal reason for this is that pri- vacy is almost impossible to obtain within the hut, where as many as fifty hammocks may be hung in the confined space of five hundred square feet. Moreover, the hammock of a man and his wife hangs not three feet from that of the former’s mother-in-law. Further- more, young children commonly sleep with the father and mother, so that there may be as many as 4 or 5 people crowded together in a single hammock. In addition to these frustrating circumstances, people are up and down most of the night, quieting children, cooking, eating, urinating, and defecating. All in all, therefore, the conditions for sexual behavior in the house are most unfavorable. Consequently intercourse is indulged in more often in some secluded nook in the forest.
Between married couples a good deal of sexual intercourse takes place in the late afternoon in the bush, near the water hole or stream upon which the band is camped. It is rarely indulged in more than once a day. When the afternoon meal has been eaten, and before retiring, couples often proceed to the water hole to bathe and, after bathing, indulge in sexual intercourse. Unmarried couples and potential spouses, of course, must take advantage of whatever opportunities arise. A favorite spot for sexual indulgence between poten- tial spouses, when there is one near the camp, is a patch of ripening maize, which is generally both near at hand and secluded.
The sexual act itself (nyeméno or tiki étiki) is a violent and rapid affair. There are few if any preliminaries. Kissing is unknown, but oral stimulation is not ab- sent; lovers have the habit of biting one another on the neck and chest during the sex act. Moreover, as the emotional intensity of coitus heightens to orgasm, lovers scratch each other on the neck, chest, and fore- head, so that they often emerge wounded from the fray. Although people are proud of them, these love scars sometimes cause trouble (in case of extramarital intercourse), because they are visible evidence of the infidelityofahusband orwife.
During coitus in the bush, the woman lies on her back on the ground with her legs spread apart and her knees flexed. The man rests his knees on the ground between her legs; his elbows also rest on the ground on both sides of her body, leaving his hands free for scratching activity. The male plays the most active role during coitus, moving on the woman with considerable force and rapidity. The woman, however,
does not remain completely passive, but adjusts her- .self to the movements of the man.
...continued
Emotional pitch is intense during coitus, which is often accompanied by farting, a habit from which considerable pleasure isapparently derived.
When intercourse takes place in the hammock the positions are essentially the same, but it is more diffi- cult to maneuver because of the added movement of the hammock. Sometimes during the height of the act a man’s knees slip through the strings of the hammock and his whole emotional set is disturbed. Informants frequently made jokes about their fellows in this re- spect. I even knew one man who injured himself rather seriously when his knee struck the ground.
Generally speaking, great freedom is allowed in -matters ofsex. Aman ispermitted tohave intercourse not only with his own wife or wives but also with her
(their) sisters, real and classificatory. Conversely, a woman is allowed to have intercourse not only with her husband but also with his brothers, real and clas- sificatory, and with the husbands and potential hus- bands of her own and classificatorysisters. Thus,apart from one’s real spouse, there may be as many as eight or ten potential spouses with whom one may have sex relations. There is,moreover, no taboo on sex relations between unmarried potential spouses, provided the .women haveundergonetheritesofmaturity. Virginity is not a virtue.
Consequently unmarried adults rarely, if ever, lack for sexual partners and frequently indulge in sex. In actual practice, sex relations between a man and his own brothers’ wives, and between a woman and her own sisters’ husbands, occur frequently and without censure, but intercourse with potential spouses more distantly related occurs less often and is apt to result in quarrels or lead to divorce.
Food is one of the best lures for obtaining extra- marital sex partners. A man often uses game as a means of seducing a potential wife, who otherwise might not yield to his demands. A concrete case will best illustrate the manner in which this is done. Aciba- eéko (Long-arm) had a potential wife, a classificatory cross-cousin, whom he had been trying to seduce for some time without success; she had consistently re- fused him her favors for fear of provoking a quarrel with her husband. One day, however, when there was little or no meat in camp and the woman’s husband was off on the hunt, Aciba-edko returned with his fam- ily from a chase on which he had been absent for several days and on which he had been successful in bagging considerable game, including a peccary which was very fat. His potential wife, being hungry, was most anxious to secure a share of the catch. She waited until Aciba-edko was alone—his wives had gone for palm cabbage and water—and approached him with the following request: “ma nde s6ri tai etima; sedidkwa” (“Give me a peccary leg; I am hungry’).
He replied, “éno, cuki ¢uki airdne” (“O.K., but first sexual intercourse”). She replied, “ti,manédi gadi (“No, afterward, no less”). He said, “ti, ndmo gadi” (“No, now, no less”), She replied, “eno, maNgitiP” (“O.K., where?”). He answered, “aiiti” (“There”),
pointing in the direction of the river. Both of them set out, by different routes, for the river, and returned, also by different routes, the woman carrying firewood, about half an hour later. He secured his prize; she, hers.
Of course, a man is often frustrated in his attempts to secure extramarital intercourse by the methods indicated above. Failures in this respect, however, re- sult not so much from a reluctance on the part of a woman to yield to the desires of a potential husband who will give her game, but more from an unwilling- ness on the part of the man’s own wife or wives to part with any of the meat that he has acquired, least of all to one of his potential wives. In general, the wife supervises the distribution of meat, so that if any part of her husband’s catch is missing she suspects him of carrying on an affair on the outside, which is grounds for dispute.
Consequently men try to pursue their extramarital intrigues as secretly as possible. In- stead of attempting to distribute meat to a potential wife after game has already been brought in from the forest, they may send in some small animal or a piece of game to the woman through an intermediary, and thus reward her for the favors they have already re- ceived or expect to receive in the future. I know of two such instances in which a woman’s brother played the role of messenger, and in a number of cases I too acted as agent for two lovers who were having diffi- culty in carrying out their affair. Fortunately, I was seldom suspected of collusion.
Fights and quarrels over sex are common but occur less often than fights over food. As has already been mentioned, such quarrels arise largely as a result of too frequent intercourse with a potential spouse to the neglect of the actual spouse; this is really what adultery amounts to among the Siriono. However much men are chided by their wives for deceiving them sexually, this seems to have little effect on their behavior, for they are constantly on the alert for a chance to seduce a potential wife with whom they have not had sexual relations, or to carry on an affair with a yukwdki (young girl) who has passed through the rites of puberty. In plural marriages, however, I rarely noted pronounced sexual jealousy between the wives, possibly because most plural marriages are of the sororal type.
In all sexual relations, basic incest taboos must be strictly observed. That is to say, it is strictly forbidden to have sexual intercourse with any member of one’s nuclear family, except one’s spouse. Among the Siriono these incest taboos are generalized to include non- family members who are designated by the same kinship term as those used for members of the nuclear family. Consequently one may not have sexual re- lations with a parallel cousin, with the child of a sib- ling of the same sex, with the child of a parallel cousin of the same sex, with a sister or parallel cousin of the mother, with a brother or parallel cousin of the father, or with the child of anyone whom one calls “potential spouse.” In addition to these taboos, which are Clearly reflected in the kinship system, sex rela- tions with the following relatives are also regarded as incestuous: grandparent and grandchild, parent-in-law
and child-in-law, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, a woman and her mother’s brother’s son, and a man and his father’s sister’s daughter.
Violations of incest taboos are believed to be pun- ished by the supernatural sanction of sickness and death. However, I never heard of a case of incest occurring among the Siriono, even in mythology. The reason for this probably lies in the fact that the sex drive is rarely frustrated to such an extent that one is tempted to commit incest.
Atypical sex behavior is also rare. I heard of no cases of rape, i.e., of intercourse with a girl who had not yet undergone the rites of puberty. When 4 man uses a certain amount of force in seducing a potential spouse who has passed through the rites of puberty, this isnot regarded as rape.
Masturbation is likewise not a common juvenile pastime, and I never heard of it being practiced by adults. Children, especially boys, however, finger their genitals a great deal without censure, and when they are young their parents masturbate them frequently. Among the men the pattern of fingering the penis, especially tugging on the foreskin, carries on into adult life. Since it occurs most frequently when they are standing around, itisprobably an automatic reaction to anxiety; when a Siriono is worried, he usually has hold of his penis.
In so far as I could tell, only one man showed any tendency toward homosexuality, but this never reached the point of overt expression. By his fellows he was regarded more as a woman than as a man. He had never had a wife and spent most of his time with the women. He lived next to his only brother, was re- garded as harmless, and made his living largely by col- lecting and trading some of his products for meat. I was able to get almost no information‘from or about
him.
Only one other case of sexual perversion came to my attention, and this was of a man called Etémi (Lazy). Besides being what his name suggests, Etémi had, according to the women, a sadistic mania for wounding them on the breasts during sexual inter- course. Consequently they would have nothing to do with him. He had no wife and was most uncommunicative. His favorite pastime—the reason for his nick- name—was resting, which he managed to do a great deal of by the following ingenious device. He was an expert at tracking tortoises. He would gather as many as ten of them at a time and hang them up alive on a beam in the house. He would then butcher one or two each day, meanwhile resting in his ham- mock, until the supply was gone. He spent long pe- riods of time alone in the forest, and was one of the few Siriono out of whom I could worm no information whatsoever.
Chastity not being a virtue, there are few occasions - when sex is taboo among the Siriono. During men- struation sex relations are forbidden, but during preg-
nancy they are recommended and indulged in up until shortly before delivery. Following childbirth, a woman refrains from intercourse for about a month, but there is no prescribed period after delivery during which she must abstain. Following the death of a spouse, a widow or widower may resume sex rela- tions within a matter of three days. There are, moreover, no other ritual or ceremonial occasions when adults are restricted from participation in sexual activity.
This is just utterly perfect material for a bawdy farcical comedy. If only the 'Carry On...' team had heard of all this. I kind of had the Benny Hill music going around my head the whole time.
This one is quite amusing, in the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ab9amvkgbw
Poor old Benny,
Never could get any!
I'll bet you're an Absolutely Fabulous fan too, eh wot?
I think they key here is whether differences are equally valued and there is the freedom to choose to be different.
Homogenisation is not equality.
Agreed! I feel this should apply to sexual minorities as well... I'm not against people making choices outside the norm, but I actually do think that there does need to be a certain Normal as a basis for society producing the next generation of humans.
That normal seems to involve pair-bonded couples practicing what the anthropologist Sarah Hrdy calls "cooperative breeding" - basically co-parenting.
Interesting, a way of life characterized by long-term pair-bonding does not necessarily imply monogamy. In many societies extramarital sex is normal and accepted. I think that historically a lot of bisexual men would have gotten their gay kicks outside of marriage, and there are women who will accept such arrangements. LGBT activists would have you believe that men who were "forced to live in the closet" were terribly oppressed, but biology provides some inconvenience here - many gay men would like to have children, but same-sex partnerships do not produce babies. They therefore need to resort to more complicated arrangements to procure infants. This is possible for some people, especially if they are well-off, but it seems unlikely that gay adoption could scale up to meet demand without creating a market for human infants.
And I think that there are extremely good reasons for the taboo against buying and selling human beings..
A lot of people have to pretend they are something else due to societal pressures to conform to stereotypes. I know people who had to leave their home towns because they couldn't stand the looks people gave them, and the remarks they got, just because they loved men, not women. "We are mostly like this, but some of us aren't, and that is fine" would be a nicer place to be.
And yes, putting anything in a market degrades it. Life is a gift, and should be treated as such.
Thank you for your well digestible and highly nourishing post !!
Thanks! If you're interested in the subject, both Against the Grain (by James C. Scott) and Catching Fire (by Richard Wrangham) are highly recommended. Both very compact, nutrient-dense books. Both are authoritative and leave little to doubt - in both cases the main theses are easy to accept... I'm a highly contrarian person yet I accept both arguments nearly in their totality!
What is the last feminist text you've read? What do you mean by feminism and why do you hate it so much?
The basic premise of original feminism (not libfem which prioritizes men) is that women are human. Why is this such a terrible thing to learn and act upon? Why is it so frightening to men? Why does it make men want to dehumanize and kill women even more than ever? Or what exactly is causing men to kill women so much? (Two - three/wk in Canada. World wide 137 women/day are killed by their male intimate partners.)
I'm currently reading Mothers and Others by Sarah Hrdy, arguably the most important feminist book written in the last quarter-century. I highly recommend it!
My views might make more sense in the context of woke feminists playing a huge role in destroying the anarchist movement in Canada. I personally know at three anarchist men who died after being victimized by the woke mob, in which feminists are always over-represented.
See: https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/why-do-anarchist-men-keep-dying-deaths
I'm not against feminism as a political movement for gender egalitarianism, as I believe I make clear in this piece. I think feminism has lost the plot. In Canada feminism was co-opted by Trudeau's Liberals. I am calling for a new wave of feminism, although I argue that a movement for political equality must allow men to express their opinions about gender relations. The "sit down and shut up" era is over. Or at least it should be.
My argument can be summarized like this - feminism has lost its moral high ground, and must return to first principles. I agree with the first principles of feminism as I understand them, though of course feminism means a lot of different things to different people. Originally, feminism was inspired by the indigenous critique and was bound up with early anarchists (see Mary Wollstonecraft, George Godwin, Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley).
Also, 2 women killed per week in Canada is 104. If it were three, that would be 156. Average those two number out and you get 130.
The current population of Canada is 38,972,375 as of Thursday, February 1, 2024, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data.
So if we assume that 50% of people are female, your chances of being murdered by your male partner are about 1 in 150,000. And women do kill men too, you know. Historically, women have preferring poisoning their male partners than killing them in a fit of rage.
Given that I am not a utopian and do not think that violence can ever be fully eliminated, that seems to be a reasonable level of violence. A much bigger problem is the opiate crisis.
I hope that doesn't sound insensitive, but feminists tend to exaggerate how bad men are. Given that feminists these days seem to unanimously believe in the presumption of guilt (that's what the BELIEVE SURVIVORS, EVEN IF THEY'RE LIARS moral imperative amounts to), it is now necessary for men to break the taboo against contradicting feminists.
"I hope that doesn't sound insensitive, but feminists tend to exaggerate how bad men are."
Example: I'm driving down the 401 freeway (Ontario) with my staunchly feminist mother (who never misses an opportunity to express her views) when we come upon a heavy truck on the shoulder with a police car behind it, lights on.
"Serves him right" she says. First default assumption: all truck drivers are men. So I let that one go, but I said "serves him right for what?" "For speeding" Second default assumption. So then I lost it, because hey Mom, did you forget that I'm a truck driver too?
So I pointed out to her that what was actually happening was the truck had broken down, and the cop was using his/her cruiser to indicate a road hazard. How do I know this? Because a cop doesn't stop behind a truck and walk 60 feet to the cab with his/her back to traffic to issue a ticket. They stop in FRONT, where there's less chance of being hit by a passing car. She wouldn't know this of course because she's never driven a truck.
Well that humbled her for a moment, but you'll never knock her off her perch, which basically says that men are the cause of all the world's problems. Not some men, ALL. Well, except me and my brother I suppose, although I'm not sure about him....lol.
Almost forgot, which I also forgot at the time. The speed limit on that section of the 401 is 110 km/hr. Most trucks can't go that fast, and even 10km over won't usually get you a ticket. Oh, and the truck was on an upgrade as well..lol.
Mind if I butt in here? My main objection to feminism is that it does the same thing to men as men do to women...i.e. it objectifies them. Describes them as a class with predefined attributes instead of as individuals with their own particular traits. Look at what you wrote for example: "Why is it so frightening to men? Why does it make men want to dehumanize and kill women even more than ever?"
Assuming you have a factual basis for that statement, how does it advance your cause by attributing that behaviour to men as a class? If true, then shouldn't you break it down a bit more, study it as a phenomenon in its own right, rather than attributing the behaviour to *all* men?
This kind of rhetoric put me off feminism years ago, which is why I avoid women who define themselves in these terms. Note, I don't dismiss their concerns, I just don't think it's a constructive way to go about addressing them. I also have to agree with Nevermore, at least in the sense that the movement has been co-opted. This tends to happen to movements I've noticed, which is why I avoid them and don't define myself using their language and terminology. I take people (which includes women) as individuals. Some are awesome, some are a pain in the ass, some are a direct threat. Sorting out who's who takes more effort than dismissing them as members of a class, but I think it's worth the effort. OTOH, when I see a crowd start to form around anything, I tend to back away, because unfortunately humans are more susceptible to emotion than they are to reason, which leaves them open to manipulation by people whose motives, more often than not, are at odds with whatever basic principles the movement started out with.
The fact is that women still do 75% of the world's unpaid labour. Men may be 'exploited' but they aren't working for free. https://www.forbes.com/sites/evaepker/2023/10/31/women-handle-75-of-all-unpaid-labor-their-health-pays-the-price/ ; Further info - tasks are taught to children. Does this imply that tasks are inherently gendered or that parents teach their children 'gendered' behaviour? https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/toolkits-guides/gender-equality-index-2021-report/gender-differences-household-chores
How do you define unpaid labour? If you mean housework, how is that not paid, considering the quid-pro-quo is a roof over her head, food on the table and the clothes on her back? Granted no money changes hands, but the functional equivalent is embedded in the arrangement. I suppose you could argue she's underpaid, but that only holds up if the husband has complete control of the family finances. True in some cases, but not in ours. My wife stays home and does home related work. I bring home a paycheck and give it to her which she puts in a joint account. I trust her to manage our budget and whatever she needs, including personal needs or wants, she doesn't have to ask. If I need money I ask her for it. She also keeps the books, the only thing I ask is that she warns me if we're cash flow negative. Incidentally, she's Japanese and quite happy with the arrangement as that's how it's done in Japan. Am I exploiting her? She doesn't think so. Someone with a chip on their shoulder might think so, but frankly, that's none of their business.
".....“A New History of Humanity”, which I think is deeply flawed."
I've just started reading that book, and as I usually do, I went straight to the last chapter to see what sort of conclusions the authors present. You can often tell from the last chapter whether a book is worth reading or not, and I found the summary of key arguments quite good, so now I'm reading chapter one, which also seems quite good. Not too many abstractions, considering the broad scope of the project, and a fairly good introduction on what to expect.
It will take me a while to get through it, not just because of the size, but because I tend to read several books in parallel. So rather than wait, and potentially forget, I'll ask you now. Can you be more specific on what your objections are - perhaps point me to the chapters where you feel they went off the rails? I've seen nothing so far to suggest this is anything but a first-rate work, but as I said, I'm only as far as chapter one.
What would the purpose be? You would have to attribute motive, but one of the ACTUAL results is that it is making everyone fight each other – even within a nation, even within a family, even within the smallest atom of society, a single relationship -- and therefore have no structure, not even at the very first iteration, to form any counterpoint of power against corporatists and hierarchy. It’s beyond “Resistance is futile”, it is that there is no Resistance whatsoever, as why would you resist, for who, WITH who, and why? Family structure and relationship is the very premise of resisting, and/or creating a better life. And for everyone, man and woman alike, both for themselves, and if you wish, defending and fighting to support or aid the other as well. Whether for charity or self-interest it does not matter, without it, there IS no resistance, nor any possible, from anyone, ever.
Being in relationship, and also relationship from children, is also what it means to be human. And that is what is being removed by misrepresenting history and causing this attack...on each other.
Now is all that for a Pro-Anarchist, ideal world, or against?
Sorry I can't put 50 years of academic research into one post. I didn't even know for many years, constantly saying "Huh", "That's odd," "There's an exception" until the exceptions are larger than the story. But I'm saying, if all the sociology and history research turns out to be this off, how likely is it evolutionary sociology is any better or less in service of their biases? A bias they may not know they have, as it's based on sociology and history classes I and everyone had, that turned out were not very true?
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following you. Could you restate your questions, please?
Let's make three points: One, if you at the source data, none of what we believe happened between the sexes is correct. That gives us a shattered telescope with which to attempt to view, not only the past, but the present.
Two, if that is correct, that previous research was astonishing biased, bent, and incorrect, often intentionally, then how can we assume this paleo/evolutionary/archeological story the experts you cite isn't similarly broken, bent, and entirely mistaken?
Three, even IF they are not at all intentionally biased -- and that is mostly the case -- they were raised in the same entirely incorrect paradigm of mischaracterized source material that you and I were. Therefore, although not INTENTIONALLY bad, it may yet be just as nearly mistaken.
Question: when those three things appear to be true, how do we proceed? You and I don't know what happened and we can't depend on experts who apparently don't know what happened, either intentionally for an agenda (often) or unintentionally because of their own current or historical biases? Yet we cannot crack the book on reading adequate source material to form a wide enough view as any single individual.
How does this affect or entirely discard your entire premise, or the possibility of being able to form a premise? This is not a specific criticism, as I can see you were extraordinarily careful in the basis of your argument.
It's hard not to be triggered by this, when the mass of anyone you talk to is so appalling, amazing, and proudly ignorant of all history. And it's incredibly obvious, and is in every book, and everyone knew this until like 20 years ago. For instance, "Women are stuck with the cooking and kids, as a slave." Okay, many parts to that: one WHO is doing this? I read this daily when no one has expected women to do this in generations, before I was born. I ask, like "Who the heck are all you women talking to???" I've never once heard a MAN say that, and I get around to meet all types. Yet it seems universally accepted that "Men" are doing this to women...without saying anything I guess? Just like men don't care it women wear high heels, they'd rather they were fun and happy, yet other WOMEN tell them to?
Next, in history, they have the most incredible, demented view of like every year ever since before 1972. There's a book called "Magdeline and Balthazar" based on the letters of 15thc married couple. In it, exactly the types they rail against: she's at home, he's out in the world of merchants. Except: HE is out in the weather, very likely to die at any time, and indeed to make trading fairs, they expect very likely to be robbed and murdered yearly. She is safe at home. Protected. As priceless. NOT put on the road to be murdered in the snows of January. Which do you prefer? And home with the kids? Yes. She was. And then the kids were safe too, since she has breasts and he doesn't. BUT: what we doing at home? She was RUNNING THE INTERNATIONAL IMPORT CORPORATION for him. That is, he might be technically CEO, with his/their family, but she was running everything for whatever time he was gone. So you see, exactly as Feminists portray it, and EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they imply.
They would say, imply again, that 100% of all wives are enslaved, raped and abused before 1972. Just ask. Bring up any of these subjects and you'll instantly hear men and women leap to say so. ON WHAT BASIS? Any stats would say violence and domestic abuse is higher than ever, among both sexes, and like 60% of domestic violence is women on men. Because no one will do anything, and men are so worthless she, her friends, his friends, both families, police, and every court will laugh at him and tell him to shut up and take it. Nor is that stat any different among lesbian couples. In addition, women are now MORE UNHAPPY THAN EVER IN HISTORY. ...Or at least since we've been keeping records, and it's been a straight-line down since 1972. ...And also men. Yet they think this is a win and want to do more of...whatever this is, let's not jump to conclusions, but it CLEARLY states that the "modern" approach is SHARPLY and PROVABLY inferior for BOTH sexes than even the terrible conditions they pre-supposed existed before.
So again, they say in history that men hit women. Okay, yes. AND WOMEN HIT MEN all the time and was considered just as funny then, where men had no recourse then, straight back to Chaucer and before. But since men don't matter, they don't exist as humans, only the WOMEN in the story matter. ...Or that's what the orientation of their argument tells me.
The historical focus also tends to be exclusively on people written about: the incredibly rich, 0.001%. That's like watching what NY and Paris Supermodels are like and saying that's the same for Hotel Maids. Like, incredibly, unbelievably off the mark. The lower classes, at least straight through the middle ages and therefore extremely likely in Rome, acted just like we do today. Having affairs. Wife swapping. Annulling. Guy moves to the next town, everyone knows it, and is considered "divorce". Premarital sex. Shotgun weddings. No weddings at all. In Chaucer or in Scotland, eg where they "Published the bans" that is, "Announced the wedding three times" by shouting out the front door, back door, front door, and boom, the judge or priest said you were married. 10,000 songs about women knocked up by a traveling soldier. Who is then looked down upon and chanced. ...All of which is exactly like now? 10,001 songs about men pining for a woman, risking life in war and returning to find she's wed another? Just like now? I can't look at a Wikipedia article but the person had a divorce from 1890-1972 during a time supposedly there was "no divorce"? Because women were slaves but also everyone was divorcing for sport? "The Opposite Sex" 1956, instant, for-fun divorce, based on a 1930 book, so therefore already common in the 1920s? It's totally different but also totally the same? Anyway, the super-ultra rich like Elon or Hillary are no, not good examples of the cultural norms of everyday life. They make up exceptions for themselves at will like Henry VIII.
This goes on and on through other history, say Iroquois life, said to be matrilinial. Same projections, same (intentional?) misunderstandings, same come-to-find-out-they-acted-just-like-us. If only somebody would read a book and ask.
Yet we have this discussions where one side is unarmed, completely unaware, have been fed an entirely false view of all human history, and never bothered to check the original source records, easily found.
Example? Like "the Burning Times" which also never happened when they went to look. I guess the original liars, publishing a totally bent paper should have known that would attract a lot of attention and people, later feminists, would go check. Or t he number of medieval women guild members when they went to look, was like 1/3rd. It was right there. And that makes them small business owners, or large. And therefore owned and commanded large sums of property. And that means not individually, but also collectively, being themselves aware of all the OTHER women in town. But I see it published that women weren't allowed to have bank accounts until like 2000 or something when my mother worked in a bank in 1968 and it was already unheard-of for a woman not to have one then for generations. Like my very question to her was one of "What are you: stupid??? OF COURSE all women had bank accounts. Or could. Between 1940 and 1960 when she grew up no one even REMEMBERS when they couldn't." But published today, that never happened. We teach it in school. We just make it up. And then wonder why these discussions are so confusing, triggering, and fraught with misunderstandings.
So when that is true, I don't even know how to unwrap the questions you're asking. It's possible or likely all these evolutionary researches are equally disingenuous, and also that you're talking to an audience or culture who can't hear that as their entire worldview is based on events and circumstances that are lies. Fictions. Never happened. Or not the way they think. And why? Back to the purpose of this entire blog, TO PERPETUATE THE POWER AND EXTRACTION OF THE POWERFUL. Over the rest of us. Doesn't it seem weird they would pay huge sums to these schools for this research with then "Resists" "Rebels" and topples them? What are the odds? Slim? Or none?
Like you not hearing this until 36 (an impossibility without specific intent) I also didn't hear about this until, like you from the common academic, historical view, you just wander in, la de da, and look at the source material out of pure curiosity, because of course you would, and discover, step by agonizing step, that none of it was real. Not everyone does that, or is willing to SEE when they do. It's career and marriage ending. To tell the truth. Of the original, easily-available, source material. Thanks!
Yes. I've learned it's better to have an abusive husband that let's you be a mother than tell on the monster and am threatened all the time. Honestly I feel like Thomas Jefferson was nicer to Sally than the men in my family and husband are to me and I can prove it so. I'm just one of millions. Women enslave each other too to please men no matter what demographic. It is what it is.
Did you read the article? I don't argue that women are slaves - the title is a rhetorical question.
I'm a woman and some of us are even enslaved by other women. Are women slaves, not "really" but sometimes yes. I read it.
Okay. I sometimes find the word "slavery" unsatisfactory because types of unfree labour vary considerably. Some kinds of slavery might have been preferable to certain kinds of wage-labour that landless peasants/proletarians were forced by economic reality to perform...
The word "slavery" implies that slavery is the worst type of economic status that a person can have but that's actually debatable. Institutions of slavery vary.
If a societal expectation forces women to do unpaid labour, such as domestic chores, that could be considered slavery if we define slave-labour by its simplest possible definition, which would be mandatory unpaid unpaid.
This might be stretching the mandatory/voluntary binary too far, though. Every time I take a shit, I wipe my ass. Is that mandatory or voluntary? Technically, voluntary, although I might suffer social consequences if I didn't do it.
But breathing is made "mandatory" by biology/God/nature. If you don't breathe, you will die. Does that make breathing mandatory? I would argue yes.
Okay, I'm abandoning this train of thought, which probably never should have left the station.
I'll post this comment anyway, though, in the hope it is entertaining to someone.
***mandatory unpaid labour***
What do you think of wage slavery?
Depends what you mean. It can be a helpful term or not depending on the situation. To compare an entry-level service worker in Toronto to an African slave exported to a Caribbean plantation would be insensitive... but both are economically exploited.