Stefan's next video?

[Mark Carolus]

I am referring to 2 video's here, one is the one where Stefan goes up against Peter Joseph and the other is the one posted on November 29 2007 called: Why are women so unhappy? A modest theory...  link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4WsRnxMZI8First of all, I completely agree with Stefan's modest theory, in fact, this is exactly what I believe and have always thought to be true, even before watching this video.When I was listening to the video with Stefan and Peter J, Stefan came up with the argument that, 95% of the world is uninhabited, so you could just go live in the woods grow your own food and therefore would not have to participate in this economy.In the "Why are women so unhappy" video, you clearly state that it is because now they are FORCED to work, in stead of being free to choose if they want to work or not.If I am not mistaken, you are admitting that having to work in order to even be able to have a life ( or at least one with all the modern conveniences ), is equal to force.

EDIT: Women can also choose to live in the forest and grow their own food right?In this case you are only referring to women, since they in the past did not have to work ( where men never had that choice ), but is it somehow not force if it involves a man needing to work in order to be able to have a life?

 

Please explain,

 

Love,

 

Mark

[Guest Ethan Glover]

Sounds like you're reading too much into things. Women work more now because it's very hard to support a family on one paycheck. That's not force so much as a shitty situation.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Everyone is forced to work to some extent. It is coercion that's the problem. Do not conflate force necessarily with coercion. I am forced to eat and sleep but not coerced. The coercive effects of the state have significantly limited women's choices. They are then forced to work in order to maintain lifestyles that previously they would not have had to work for in this way. This is not the same as Stef's argument against PJ's claim that being forced to trade is coercion. Also women are still free not to work and go find ways to support themselves other than through trade. 

It is completely essential that you understand the different meanings of force. PJ tries to conflate them in such a way that's there's no fundamental distinction between coercion and non-coercion. 

[Mark Carolus]

Everyone is forced to work to some extent. It is coercion that's the problem. Do not conflate force necessarily with coercion. I am forced to eat and sleep but not coerced. The coercive effects of the state have significantly limited women's choices. They are then forced to work in order to maintain lifestyles that previously they would not have had to work for in this way. This is not the same as Stef's argument against PJ's claim that being forced to trade is coercion. Also women are still free not to work and go find ways to support themselves other than through trade. 

It is completely essential that you understand the different meanings of force. PJ tries to conflate them in such a way that's there's no fundamental distinction between coercion and non-coercion. 

 

Before feminism, men were the sole breadwinners of the household, with women having the option to go to work.

After feminism, things got so expensive that women now also have to work, in stead of having the option to work.

 

This has made women more unhappy.

 

Am I missing something here? or are you?

How come "women being forced/coerced to work" can be given as a valid reason for women being more unhappy, given the fact that men were forced/coerced to do that for eon's?

 

We are basically admitting that working is shit, are we not?

Or are we admitting that being coerced or forced to work is shit?

 

In both cases, my original post is still valid

 

if (work == shit){

men.unhappy = true

women.unhappy = true

}

else {

men.unhappy = false

women.unhappy = false

}

 

if (forcedTOwork == shit){

men.unhappy = true

women.unhappy = true

}

else {

men.unhappy = false

women.unhappy = false

}

 

I feel we should make work an option for everyone, man and woman.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Before feminism, men were the sole breadwinners of the household, with women having the option to go to work.

After feminism, things got so expensive that women now also have to work, in stead of having the option to work.

 

This has made women more unhappy.

 

Am I missing something here? or are you?

How come "women being forced/coerced to work" can be given as a valid reason for women being more unhappy, given the fact that men were forced/coerced to do that for eon's?

 

We are basically admitting that working is shit, are we not?

Or are we admitting that being coerced or forced to work is shit?

 

In both cases, my original post is still valid

 

if (work == shit){

men.unhappy = true

women.unhappy = true

}

else {

men.unhappy = false

women.unhappy = false

}

 

if (forcedTOwork == shit){

men.unhappy = true

women.unhappy = true

}

else {

men.unhappy = false

women.unhappy = false

}

 

I feel we should make work an option for everyone, man and woman.

I don't know if it's the work itself that has necessarily made them unhappy. Many women like to work rather than be supported. 

Who said "forced/coerced"? I just mentioned that certain people were trying to conflate all force with coercion. You seem to be doing it blatantly. Please don't do that.  If you find work shit that's your view. You are not being coerced to work. Having to do things to sustain yourself is a fact of nature. If you have a problem with that then become an antinatalist and take it up with your parents. You are trying to extract something from Stef's argument above that isn't there.

 

What you "feel" isn't really relevant. If you have a way to make work optional then go do it. It is essential you understand the different meanings of force. Do you understand them?

[Mark Carolus]

Why do you keep missing the point?

I have the feeling that you do it on purpose.

 

Why are you trying to explain to me, that there's a difference between force and coercion ( i do know the difference ), even though that does not in any way refute my argument?

 

Why is women being forced and/or coerced ( whether it is forced or coerced does not matter at all ) to work, a valid argument for women being unhappy?

Why is that very same argument not relevant to men?

Please answer me that question.

 

Question 2:

Were men forced to work pre-feminism or were they coerced?

If coerced, then why can Stefan all the sudden say that women are forced?

If forced, then why is men having to work any less of a reason for them to be unhappy, then it is for a woman?

 

 

If we had a system in which automated machines produce the basic human needs, then surely, work has become optional right?

We have the technological capability to actually do that.

Why not take that part of the RBE/Zeitgeist movement/Venus project and still keep a money based system, in which people are allowed to work, if they want to have more then just their needs met?

I do not believe the resource based economy is a valid one to go for, but does that mean that every point made by its advocates is invallid? clearly it's not.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Why do you keep missing the point?

I have the feeling that you do it on purpose.

 

Why are you trying to explain to me, that there's a difference between force and coercion ( i do know the difference ), even though that does not in any way refute my argument?

 

Why is women being forced and/or coerced ( whether it is forced or coerced does not matter at all ) to work, a valid argument for women being unhappy?

Why is that very same argument not relevant to men?

Please answer me that question.

 

Question 2:

Were men forced to work pre-feminism or were they coerced?

If coerced, then why can Stefan all the sudden say that women are forced?

If forced, then why is men having to work any less of a reason for them to be unhappy, then it is for a woman?

 

 

If we had a system in which automated machines produce the basic human needs, then surely, work has become optional right?

We have the technological capability to actually do that.

Why not take that part of the RBE/Zeitgeist movement/Venus project and still keep a money based system, in which people are allowed to work, if they want to have more then just their needs met?

Well if you know the difference then stop using force and coerce as interchangeable. If you can show coercion then that's a very different thing. I'm sure in some sense it IS relevant to men. Many men would be happier if they had the option not to work. So what?

If men were coerced to work "pre-feminism" then that was slavery. I'm sure it happened but I don't think it was at all the norm. Who's arguing that a man having to work is any less reason to be unhappy than a woman? I'm sure most men would prefer the option of not having to work. As I said, you are trying to extract something from Stef's argument that isn't there.

If we have the technology to produce "basic human needs" without any labor then go prove it. If by basic human needs you mean basic food, shelter and clothing then I don't think you have to work very hard to get that. I would bet my life that most people in history would look at the average lifestyle of a poor westerner with extreme envy. Remember it was automated machines that to a large degree freed women from household chores and what did they often want to do? Go out to work. 

[Guest Ethan Glover]

Mark,

 

Neither men or women then or now are being forced to work. (Unless we're talking about slavery.) You've picked out a specific word, and you're trying to strictly interpret the context instead of just recognizing what's really being talked about. ("You messed up in your wording! Now you're wrong about everything!")

 

Any society without work is 100% unsustainable, anything that suggests otherwise is delusional. Give this a look if you're so inclined. Economics Anarchists Don't Want You To Know