Will Feminist Innovation Never Cease?
Lifted from the comments:
A feminist educator in the United Kingdom is making a point not to step aside when men walk in her direction, playing what she refers to as “patriarchy chicken.” […] “A few days ago, I was having a bad morning: my train tickets were expensive, my train was delayed, and my coffee was cold,” [Dr Charlotte] Riley wrote. “But I cheered myself up by playing a game on my commute. The game is called Patriarchy Chicken, and the rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men.” If that sounds like something that would be ungentlemanly conduct if perpetrated by a man, you would be correct in your assessment.
Dr Riley, you’ll note, is a grown woman.
Our feminist lecturer’s New Statesman article, in which she elaborates on Patriarchy Chicken and its allegedly empowering effects, can be found here. We’re told, somewhat implausibly, “It’s important to note that Patriarchy Chicken isn’t about anger.” When not applauding herself for repeatedly and deliberately colliding with male commuters, Dr Riley informs us that “war and peace can only be understood through gender.”
Also, open thread.
Is it just me, or is Ten channeling our long lost commentator Minnow?
Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think Ten disagrees with much that is said here in principle, he just has a way of obfuscating and agreeing in a disagreeable manner about tactics…I think. I’d say he’s more like the ying to a certain other yang who has a way of drawing attention to himself by disagreeing with the general agreement while pretending not to be disagreeable….ok, i’ve edited that three times and I still don’t know wtf I’m trying to say myself. But dammit, I’m invested in this comment now…so there you go…
Not to change the subject but is it just my observation or has Sherman been AWOL for a while?
Jaysus on a Pony, Ten, can you answer a simple question without going off…
Can I somehow not reject the faulty premise freighted with your demand, do you mean. I doubt it.
Can you grasp how simple the real issue is: Whether costs factor into prices is not only risibly simplistic, it ignores all the greater problems with the status quo.
I’m aware of your shtick. Can you really not grasp what the problem is or do you just prefer to argue?
That is my point as well.
Given the rambling aside on some abbreviated and irrelevant theory of tangible value at WTP | March 11, 2019 at 20:37 one has their doubts. No, initially this has nothing to do with such unpopular things as an undebauchable coin.
Tax policy is crap. It’s the spending that is the problem.
Both true. But neither terminal problem is lessened one iota by effectively making it a central pillar of commerce with the wage-earning individual its obligor. We’re not all going to die if that burden is shifted, thus putting everybody out of business
So. Do we really think profligate debt is (something something) lasting solvency and prosperity because (something something) personal obligation?
Anyway, now that the locals have lit their torches again I’m out. Funny how opposition to such a simple and clearly originalist tenet actually becomes impacted when its purported conservative trustees find themselves on the wrong side of it.
Also:
That is my point as well.
It certainly wasn’t the point you wrote: You expounded on the grave dangers of passing expenses to sellers. Specifically:
…either raise their prices, a tax on the consumers that they do not “see”, or they go out of business or do something else, which is a burden (tax) on those consumers who no longer have goods/services that they previously desired available to them.
Given the rambling aside on some abbreviated and irrelevant theory of tangible value at WTP | March 11, 2019 at 20:37 one has their doubts. No, initially this has nothing to do with such unpopular things as an undebauchable coin.
It was you who brought the Fed into it. I’m simply (ok, not so simply) saying that the Fed is not the economy. As for you to suggest that I’m rambling…seriously? Half the time no one here has any idea wtf you’re trying to get at. I at least took a stab at guessing on some of this as I vaguely think I know where you’re coming from. But then you obfuscate the hell out of everything and can’t even answer simple yes/no questions put to you by others. Though speaking of obfuscation, I’m thinking there should be a Code 9010. If anyone gets my drift yet.
You expounded on the grave dangers of passing expenses to sellers. Specifically:
Those aren’t grave dangers, they’re just the reality of doing business. As Darleen states above, a tax is simply another expense. Raise the minimum wage and if I’m employing minimum wage workers I will have a decision to make. Get rid of some and make other people work harder or more efficiently, raise my prices to cover the higher cost, or go out of business. Sure I can eat some of that cost myself as well but that has a cost. I’m in whatever business I’m in for a reason. At some point if expenses rise and I can’t work around that, it makes no sense for me to continue with the business. I fold up and go work for someone else. Or go into another business. But no matter which path, the consumer is impacted in the end such that quality drops due to new stresses or costs rise or the business ceases to be. All of those things are a cost, yes partly on the business, but on all of the other entities as well. Especially the consumer. The consumer may not feel it as intensely as the tax will be spread among all of his other suppliers/providers. But it’s there. It doesn’t just disappear. As a supplier I set my costs as low as possible to attract as much business as possible to make as much profit as possible. An increase in any cost, and again to Darleen’s valid observation a tax is another cost, impacts me somewhere. Otherwise someone else would have my customers.
On a lighter note, I believe the younger set call this pwnage.
On another lighter note: “These $150 USB cables will noticeably improve the audio quality of the internet radio output.”
Air in the US is racist.
Page 265 of JoC got me through college. And let’s be completely honest, still gets me through Saturday mornings with the proto-rapists. Their insatiable hunger for pancakes probably marks them as oppressors of some sort.
I have a lot of various brands of cosmetics because I subscribe to ipsy.com, and earlier today I did some product testing. I found that our old reliable GBG principle will no longer work with many brands. Evidently the makeup Mafia, the dirty bastards, figured out that if they saturated the powder with glitter rather than just spraying it on the top, they might force us to buy the glitter AND the matte if we really liked the color. 😡. Grrr.
GBG still works on Avon, Maybelline, and Cover Girl—for now.
I did have fun feeling authorial while product testing, at least till I came to a really pretty bronze with circus-horse-rider sparliness added. Son of Pogonip could literally see it across the room. Double grrr. 😡😡. Allons, mesdames! To China and the factory barricades!
Hey, did we find out if Sherman’s OK? I hope so.
If you’ve read your way through the entire Encyclopaedia of Tie Knots and know your way around a Balthus and a Co-half-Windsor, this may be your next step.
I’m aware of your shtick
::::sigh:::: as I am of yours. There is no communication if two people can’t agree on basic means of communication and definitions. I asked very simple questions to see if we couldn’t find a common language and go from there. You have no desire to engage in good faith debate, only scoring points with arcane language designed to obfuscate, not clarify.
Clarity before agreement. Something you appear to have no interest in.
…this may be your next step.
Other than a tuxedo or dress uniform, outside of a clown show there is never a reason to wear a bow tie…
I just can’t seem to get over the obvious ironic fact that’s she assuming the gender of every “man” she plans on walking into for this game.
I repeat, she’s assuming someone’s gender all for a game! The horror – and I’m horrified.
Well, there was that guy on Fox News who wore bow ties and made millions…
Well, there was that guy on Fox News who wore bow ties and made millions…
That’s a lot of bow ties.
Posted by: Darleen | March 12, 2019 at 03:44
Such intellectual dishonesty. You kicked over the furniture making demands backed up by that manufactured outrage shtick and now you stand behind false civility. Appeals to the authority of private standards appear to be stock in trade over there.
The point is and was the right’s unquestioning fealty to corporate cronyism – to corporatism, even to the point of asserting that without aspects of it business would fail. This is called capitalism.
Again: Do you honestly expect false premises to pass unnoticed? Or do you eventually get the argument you want by requiring them twice?
It was you who brought the Fed into it.
I brought monetary policy into it, WTP. Obviously it’s by far the primary determinant of commerce and what we call an economy. Or does the Fed mint gold coin, WTP, and should we follow that thread of yours?
As for you to suggest that I’m rambling…seriously?
Oh quite. Just look at it all the proud theorizing. And so broad.
Half the time no one here has any idea wtf you’re trying to get at. I at least took a stab at guessing on some of this as I vaguely think I know where you’re coming from.
Not quite so hard on the locals, WTP, after all I’m keeping it simple, although some assembly is naturally required. But it doesn’t need spoon-feeding, does it?
But then you obfuscate the hell out of everything and can’t even answer simple yes/no questions put to you by others.
Nonsense. Your insights are harbingers of greatness to come, I’m sure. Let’s not be victims of ourselves.
Those aren’t grave dangers, they’re just the reality of doing business.
Well, no they’re not, are they. They’re artificial, rejiggled aspects of an economy whose bottom line remains completely unchanged when those customary flows are rerouted to where they should lie, isn’t that right. Business doesn’t really disappear, does it, and the great engine of commerce – a rightist term – actually revs a little freer when they’re corrected. And then we have the personal benefits, the point of it all. Any conservatives here?
Maybe not. It all invariably condenses into this next furor (repeated five times, as if for emphasis or an almost involuntary show of ignorance against An Obfuscator):
As Darleen states above, a tax is simply another expense.
And tires are round, WTP. Who cares? (I brace for impact as trained corporatists ready their one cronyist arrow.) It nets the same, see, and that’s not even the point ostensible constitutionalists should pay mind to (but for all the Obfuscating, probably).
Raise the minimum wage and if I’m employing minimum wage workers I will have a decision to make.
And? Is the minimum wage a component of free markets or is this just an effective canard, you sly dog.
At some point if expenses rise and I can’t work around that, it makes no sense for me to continue with the business. [Subsequent rudimentary fallacy on convenience store costs snipped.]
Such a dilemma, managing all these Market Forces. Back to the point: When the cost of goods rises to normalized market float and consumers, enriched by liberty from personal taxation, carry on exactly as before, we don’t actually have waves of bankruptcies because something something prevented only by – viola! – an enormously manipulated debt and tax economy. (By the way are you familiar with the term FIRE economy? You verged on it, thankfully, and it also applies…)
Kindly inspect your stuff to see how rational and relevant it is and thanks in advance. Meanwhile, there we have it, once again sufficiently unobfuscated.
@Farnsworth M Muldoon
“bafflegab”!
Lovely word. Lids dipped in the antipodes.
The myth of the corporate tax relationship, exploded.
https://econimica.blogspot.com/2018/12/who-benefits-from-low-corporate-taxation.html
False capitalism is one of the right’s Achilles Heels.
c.f. Manslamming, a less tractable cousin of manspreading