Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A Crude Awakening for Women

By Martha Burk, Ms. Magazine. Posted August 10, 2006.


Whether supporting repressive regimes abroad or giving tax breaks to ExxonMobil, U.S. priorities are consistent: Oil wins over women's rights.
Advertisement

This article is excerpted from the summer 2006 issue of Ms. Magazine, available on newsstands now.

When the Taliban, the most anti-woman militia in Afghanistan's civil war, took over the country in 1996, it immediately forced women to leave their jobs, banned work outside the home, prohibited females from attending school and put women under house arrest, unable to go out in public unless accompanied by a close male relative and wearing a head-to-toe burqa. Women who violated Taliban decrees were beaten, imprisoned, even killed.

Despite this, the U.S. government was on the fast track to recognize this unelected, oppressive regime as Afghanistan's official government and to prop up the militia with millions of taxpayer dollars.

Why? In a word: oil.

Unocal Corp. of California (now part of Chevron), in partnership with a Saudi consortium, was competing with an Argentine company to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the coast of Pakistan. The U.S. government wanted to secure the project for Unocal.

The Clinton State Department announced that it would establish relations with the Taliban by sending a diplomat to Kabul, and several envoys were dispatched to woo the Taliban for the pipeline rights. State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said the United States found "nothing objectionable" in the steps taken by the Taliban to impose Islamic law. Only a concentrated effort by the Feminist Majority, NOW and allied groups around the world prevented the Taliban from being recognized as the official government of Afghanistan, and kept the United States from sanctioning the abolishment of women's most basic human rights in service of the petroleum industry.

This is perhaps the starkest example of why the politics of oil is a feminist issue. Whether supporting gender apartheid abroad, or sacrificing feeding programs for U.S. women and children so that ExxonMobil can get a tax break, or simply standing by while the company reaps record profits at the expense of poor women who must drive to work and heat their houses, U.S. priorities are consistent: Oil wins over women's rights hands down.

Many believe oil was the principal, if not the only, reason for the Iraq war. A top-secret 2001 National Security Council document, written before 9/11 and two years prior to military action in Iraq, directed staff to cooperate fully with Vice President Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force as it considered the "melding" of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states," such as Iraq, and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." The State Department's "Oil and Energy Working Group" reached a consensus that Iraq's oil "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."

Whether or not this blood-for-oil scenario is the whole story, the new Iraqi Constitution and laws already passed contain far stronger guarantees for major U.S. oil interests than they do for the women of Iraq. Women's rights deteriorated rapidly after the first Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein sold them out to religious fundamentalists in order to consolidate power. The United States had the opportunity to restore much of what was lost after the 2003 invasion. But in the period leading up to the election of the National Assembly, our government failed the women of Iraq in many ways.

The postwar constitution now declares Islam as the official religion of the state and the fundamental source of legislation. Even though the document gives a nod to equal rights for all, no laws have been passed regarding women's rights to work, equal pay, pregnancy leave or child care -- all guaranteed in the previous constitution. According to Human Rights Watch, the failure of occupation authorities to provide public security in Iraq's capital lies at the root of a widespread fear of rape and abduction among women and their families, preventing many women from working and doing business in public.

In contrast, Big Oil is well-protected in the constitution and new laws. The constitution guarantees the reform of the Iraqi economy in accordance with "modern economic principles" to "ensure … the development of the private sector"-- essentially abolishing Iraqi state dominion over its petroleum reserves. Corollary laws guarantee that foreign companies will have control over at least 64 percent of Iraq's oil, and possibly as much as 84 percent.

The black-shrouded women in Iraq are unfortunately not alone in being sacrificed to the politics of oil. Oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia get a pass on women's rights because of the black gold beneath the ground they traverse on foot, or in a car driven by someone else because they are not allowed behind the wheel. From Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 to mainstream media reports, it's well-documented that the U.S. government has long been cozy, if not outright deferential, to the Saudis.


Digg!

Martha Burk writes the "Money" column for Ms. Magazine and is the author of "Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in the Workplace and What Can Be Done About It."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Go ahead, take the female perspective instead of the worker perspective. Keeps The Workers Divided
Posted by: rebel_pig on Aug 10, 2006 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the better for the rich investor!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» UP the Workers' ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» misogynist's perspective Posted by: brasilaron
» Yes, but . . . Posted by: kit79
clear
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 10, 2006 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is clear that the Bushies are antidemocratic and anti-female in their foreign policy and actions in other countries. In addition they are antilabor rights, antivoting rights and antireal democracy here and in foreign countries. They use typical fascist tactics in their lies and propaganda. They use mass murder through bombing as a tactic in controlling other nations. They use fascist control tactics against a free press. And all because they are obcessed with money, control, greed and oil. Impeach the bastards and control freaks in the Bush administration who are guilty of dozens of illegal acts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the Turban Heads Stupid
Posted by: coldeye on Aug 10, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fanatic muslims. but the feminists find it easier to bash the USA. Why not? We have democracy here, despite the paranoid whines of "they stole the election and are fascist" fruitcakes. Women have more equality in the US than anywhere other than one or two nations in Europe. But give the USA credit for that? Oh no.

Well, ladies, Are you for an immediate pullout from Iraq? Because if you are, it's feudalism for femmes in Bagdhad.

Oh what is a PC Gal to do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» did you not get... Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: did you not get... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» We don't have . . . Posted by: kit79
Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Aug 10, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I witness every day is women driving large SUV's, wanting a bigger house to heat and air condition and all other conveniences that make their life safe and secure. All this requires massive amounts of energy (oil). Why won't feminists put their "money where their mouths are" and begin promoting energy conservation, environmental responsibility and health promotion. What feminists seem to do well is find fault in almost every domain of life and those who are to blame are all those besides themselves (men mostly). Being a constant victim somehow, somewhere, sometime has its limits. Mine were passed long ago with feminism. Join the rest of humanity and look for solutions that involve something other than eliminating men or what you perceive they represent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Sometimes we are at fault. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Sometimes we are at fault. Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Sometimes we are at fault. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Sometimes we are at fault. Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Sometimes we are at fault. Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: adventuregrrl
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Blaming Feminists Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Blaming Feminists Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Blaming Feminists Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Abusive men in prision Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Feminism: Blaming Everyone Else Posted by: ChristopherLL
The female perspective...
Posted by: agapegirl on Aug 10, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the worker perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why all the feminist backlash?
Posted by: Linda23456 on Aug 10, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it astonishing that, even on a progessive site like Alternet, there is such a great backlash on any article or comment regarding feminism and women's issues.

Yes, when compared with other nations, many women are quite fortunate in the United States. However, we still live in a country where 25% of all women will experience sexual assault in their lifetimes. Women in the U.S. face wage inequality, sexual harrassment, and a decreasing amount of control over their reproductive organs.

Feminism is about equality. Plain and simple. It is not about blaming men or self-victimization. Feminists will not rest until women receive the same degree of dignity & respect that all humans are entitled. They will continue until violence against women is a thing of the past, until women are in control of their own bodies, and until women comprise approximately one-half of all Senate and House seats.

I find it interesting that, while articles regarding women's rights elicit such backlash, I have never seen this type of negative response to any other group. No one on this site would ever consider responding to an article regarding an ethnic group in this manner. I guess what I'm wondering is, why is it completely taboo to be racist, but perfectly acceptable to be sexist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why all the feminist backlash? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Why all the feminist backlash? Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam
» Suggestions (Part I?) Posted by: H_H
» RE: Suggestions (Part I?) Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Why all the feminist backlash? Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Why all the feminist backlash? Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Why all the feminist backlash? Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Reproductive rights Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: *sigh* More backlash bs... Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
no news to our ears...
Posted by: paintthestreets on Aug 10, 2006 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US also gives a nod to women's rights but we have no Equal Rights Amendment...in many ways we aren't THAT different from those we look down upon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ERA:that makes me feel old Posted by: coldeye
» Not just for women Posted by: kit79
Yes, oil dependency IS a "feminist" issue, and furthermore...
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Aug 10, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, also, and "civilization" IS at stake!

[Sidebare note: My use of the term "civilization" refers to a society founded on rule-governed behavior, with respect for scholarship, fine art, and principles of justice and human dignity. This USED TO BE a paradigm for human society, but in our age of "new barbarism", it has fallen by the wayside.]

To hell with PC, I'm gona' say it like it is!

Gender inequality is at the root of virtually EVERY major problem on the world stage. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the parts of the world ruled by Muslim men. Progress that might have been expected in those regions has been stymied by Western powers, bent on controlling the area FOR OIL!!

Let's not forget that in the Middle Ages the Arab Emirates were a bastion of learning and (surprise!) tolerance---well, by Middle Ages standards, and in comparison with so-called "Christian" Europe where barbarism reigned supreme! In other words, in those days the ARABS were the champions of "civilization"!

So, what happened? Europe developed weapons that enabled it to smash the Muslim empire, stifling its continued growth. And in modern times OIL provided the incentive to continue trying to control the region. Any patrichical society that feels threatened tends to scapegoat women (and minorities, but that's another subject). Look at what is happening in the U.S. right now!

The more the West has trampled on Arab pride (which is bigger than their noses!), the worse Arab women have been treated. The freedom of western women is another excuse. Our breezy lifestyle is offensive to orthodoxy at the best of times. But (of course) U.S. foreign policy is the real culprit.

Now we have a tiger by the tail. We can't deal with these people (the loony Muslim men, that is). We can't just walk away --- BECAUSE WE ARE DEPENDENT ON THE OIL. (Or, more accurately, our trading partners are dependent on the oil; the U.S. is not really dependent on Middle Eastern oil.)

If short, if the West could cure it's addiction to OIL, we could (and should!) get the hell out of that area and let SANE Muslims, including Muslim women especially, get their cultures and societies back on track.

If we were in a position to tell the jackasses who are scaring US all to death, to go pound sand (literally), they could then be directed (by their own people!) to crawl back behind their piles of camel dung, and swat flies!

We will never be in the position to do that until we wean ourselves off OIL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» He's right Posted by: kit79
» I missed . . . Posted by: kit79
Oil and coal politics are screwing over everyone on the planet
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 10, 2006 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not just women (and remember, Condi Rice is a woman, also an ex-member of Chevron's board of directors who had an oil tanker named after her, and a big supporter of Saudi Arabia as well - our 'dear friends' - and a confidant of Bushand Rumsfeld as well). The entire Bush administration is invested in the oil and coal business; they are just a bunch of criminals who are doing their utmost to rip off the US public.

Take the recent BP-managed disaster in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska - despite multiple warnings that corrosion was not being managed, the company did nothing and is looking at looming disasters - but will be banking a higher % of profits from the new oil prices as a result. This is "We are all about green plants and sunshine" BP; you can see their greenwashing PR campaign in all the magazines.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/10/1339232

That's just the short-term - the industry is also running a massive dirty campaign to prevent governments from taking action on global warming, which will affect men, women, children - and the rest of life on Earth as well.

Getting off imported oil and building a renewable energy system - see the Apollo initiative - is the only solution to this oncoming disaster. That'll mean many good jobs for US citizens, a cleaner healthier environment, and a great deal more equality for both men and women, and no more sacrificing US soldiers in foreign oil wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are you SURE Condi Rice is a woman? Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» I can't resist Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Yeah - She's a MAN baby!!!! Posted by: Blue Heron
You men have lost sight of the point of this article!
Posted by: pianojo on Aug 10, 2006 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it interesting how the men who post here have entirely forgotten the subject of this article!

Oh, I guess it was the WOMEN in the Afghanistan who decided that they should have their own civil liberties destroyed.

I guess it was the WOMEN who decided to give up their jobs and IMPRISON themselves in their homes.

I guess it was the WOMEN who decided to cover themselves up like the corpses they have been turned into by MEN.

WTF is going on here? MEN...MEN...MEN...MEN did this to the women in Afghanistan. MEN who think women are lower than the chickens scratching for morsels of food in the earth. MEN who murder and beat and destroy the lives of women.

THAT is what this article is about. And if FEMINISTS are the women who revolt against being made into SLAVES, then FEMINISTS it is. You don't like it? TOO BAD!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A crude awakening for women
Posted by: willymack on Aug 10, 2006 11:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil wins over women's rights? Make that women, men, and all others. With a pustule like bush in office, that's the way it'll stay, and is the main reason he has to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yep, American women are EXACTLY as oppressed as Afghan women
Posted by: H_H on Aug 10, 2006 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My God, feminist boilerplate gets old really quick. It's cliche to the point of banality. Seriously, you could write a PERL script that automates this garbage by now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for telling us, jackass! Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» Spelling question Posted by: BlueTigress
To all those who are prone to over-using the term 'backlash':
Posted by: H_H on Aug 10, 2006 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much in the same way that it ought to be possible to criticize American society without being accused of 'backlash' against America, it might be a good idea to make it possible for people to question/criticize feminism without being accused of 'backlash' against women.

What you call 'backlash' here is largely a manifestation of the principled objection to the fact that feminists tend not to tolerate those who ask too many of the wrong questions.

In fact, one might even call this a form of equal treatment: We show about as much respect to feminists as feminists show to men (ie: little to zero).

By focusing strictly on women, the ideology takes the stance that women are in need of special, UNIQUE concern and that focusing on neutral issues (ie: geopolitics over oil) is a sinister way of "ignoring" women and their uniquely special needs which are just so much more deserving of attention than anything else. Feminists assign to women a deeper and more complex level of humanity than they assign to men. This turns any pretense of desire for "equality" into a blatant farce.

You also need to understand where I'm coming from: In my spare time, I do volunteer work with a Latin American solidarity movement which helps people who've escaped being beaten-up by paramilitaries in places like El Salvador and Colombia. These are GENUINELY oppressed people (both men and women) that I work with. And you know what? They don't complain about 'oppression' nearly as much as feminists do in this country. There's no resentment, anger or fancy rhetoric coming from the people I work with. So you'll have to forgive me for not shedding a load of tears over white First World women who think that experiencing rudeness in the workplace ought to make them eligible for $2 million in damages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» He makes one very good point Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: He makes one very good point Posted by: MatthewSavage
What if HEMP were legal?
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 10, 2006 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, even in the days hemp was legal, women were written off as irrelevant. However, the author correctly puts together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle on the glaring relationship between women and oil. In countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt which gets loads of WMDs from the US, women are beaten to death the most although Afghanistan is catching up thanks to the US allowing the TALIBAN to re-take control of the country. But imagine the US growing hemp and producing hemp oil for biodiesel or hempoline. There would be no excuse for the US to keep making deals with these terrorists nations.

P.S.: In truth, men are also taking major damage hits in both the US and the dictatorships the US government finances and sends massive WMDs to. No man or woman in their correct frame of mind would allow government to jumpstart wars and maximize poverty, slavery, racism, and terrorism to the max.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oil
Posted by: john henry on Aug 10, 2006 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
barry goldwater in 1970"s sayed the power broker in washington was makeing deal for cheap oil so there kids an there grandchildner an so on can drive there power car on our roadways an we are walking this wasan interveiw in the omin mag. in the mid 70"s

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So why don't womyn fight?
Posted by: Burton on Aug 11, 2006 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll repeat a point I continually make: if women are so oppressed in the Muslim world, then why don't feminists go to these countries, take up weapons, and fight for their sisters' freedoms?

Back during the Soviet-Afghan War, numerous men went to Afghanistan to support the resistance against the communists. You had the various Islamic groups, but you also had numerous Americans and Europeans who went to Afghanistan to fight against communist oppression.

We ought to see a million feminist march on DC, demanding that the Pentagon open the combat arms to women. And then see feminists marching to the recruiting offices to volunteer for the infantry.

We ought to see feminists starting up their own resistance organizations, training themselves in weaponry, and then heading on out to the Middle East, AK-47s in hand. Heck, the Muslims did this in the 1980s in Afghanistan (and are doing it today in Iraq).

Since women are equal to men, why then don't feminists put their money where their mouths are and go fight against Islamic oppression?

Or is this just another case of women stirring up fighting between men? You know the number, women go into hysterics over something and then expect men to come in and do the fighting for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So why don't womyn fight? Posted by: BlueTigress
Sure thing
Posted by: lucizoe on Aug 11, 2006 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, then. Just keep denying your prejudices. Should serve you well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sure thing Posted by: lucizoe
A bit alarmed
Posted by: kit79 on Aug 11, 2006 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While good and fair points have been made on both sides and I understand that men are wary of a movement which paints them as naturally bad, I find it bit unnerving that some people seem to think that equality and human rights are something that must be earned, when they should be inherent to all human beings.

When the question is asked, "Why aren't women given equal treatment?" The answer from some of the anti-feminist crowd seems to be, "Because you haven't proven that you deserve it yet," as if equality were their privilege to extend to others. What a God complex. And of course that privilege is only extended to hose who seek to benefit men in this view. What? The Taliban is persecuting women? Just more "feminist" whining wanting special treatment! Let's move on to something that harms men, because that's a worthy and just cause! Women concerned for other women are selfish, seperatist bitches whose concerns are invalidated if they haven't done xyx. Why not say the same of the left in general in countering the dominant right-wing practices and ideologies? Not that criticisms of the left or of feminism and individual feminists can't be or aren't legitimate.

I, too, am tired of being a "special" case and "special" cause for concern, as I am a *person* and not a deviation from the norm. A violation of human rights is a violation of human rights. Period. But it wasn't feminism that seperated woman from human. We've been "the other" for a long time now.

The age-old prejudice seems to be holding here though: women must prove their worth, while with men it is automatic. It just proves that feminism is no where near to being done or unneeded. It's also assumed that women who are feminist, are *only* feminist, and not concerned with other human rights groups.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» whoops Posted by: kit79
» RE: A bit alarmed Posted by: Linda23456
Excellent points, and ...
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Aug 14, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... we seem to be in agreement on all significant points.

Peace!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism, the modern Dodo
Posted by: Spock on Aug 15, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously, feminism's bete noir is the end of the oil supply. Without it, there would have been no feminism. If there were no source of energy tomorrow, the technology dependent upon it would die. And with it, so would feminism.

The world we live in was built, you see (so does history), by male muscle. Only when the male had driven back nature, industrialized, controlled climate (central air, heat, and all those electrical appliances) could and did the female do anything he could.

Take away all that, take us back to muscle power, and imagine what the world would be like.

No wonder women - some women - fear the end of oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism, the modern Dodo
Posted by: Spock on Aug 15, 2006 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously, feminism's bete noir is the end of the oil supply. Without it, there would have been no feminism. If there were no source of energy tomorrow, the technology dependent upon it would die. And with it, so would feminism.

The world we live in was built, you see (so does history), by male muscle. Only when the male had driven back nature, industrialized, controlled climate (central air, heat, and all those electrical appliances) could and did the female do anything he could.

Take away all that, take us back to muscle power, and imagine what the world would be like.

No wonder women - some women - fear the end of oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]