Peak Oil News and Message Boards

If Peak Oil occurs, and societal breakdown occurs, people can kiss women's rights goodbye. With mechanization, without the equalization provided by technology, women can't be as strong as men from a physical standpoint.

Now I know that the feminist groups are exceptionally good about manipulating public opinion and changing cultural perceptions. It's what they do, they're REALLY, REALLY good at it. Plus very dedicated.

So, since the feminist interest will be completely jepradized(however you spell that), if we could convince one of the leading feminist leaders, or scholars about this, they could really mobilize a strong effort to combat peak oil.

Also, feminist would find peak oil to be a fertile ground for political growth, once they were the ones spouting that it was going to happen, and they turned out to be right, everyone would turn to them for their opinions, which would aid their political power. We could offer that prospect to the feminist leaders, because power is always tempting.

So what do y'all think?

Kylon -

I'd have to differ with you on the adviseability of encouraging the decidedly partisan "feminist" movement from pushing PO awareness, as it seems to me that the PO needs to be associated with the inverted chauvinism that now passes for feminism like a hole in the head.

My two pennorth,

Backstop

Hmmmm,

I can see your point,

Some people might disagree with feminism, and therefore disagree with peakoil, due to a feminist association.

Well, we need to use some other vehicle. We need some group to help spread the word, it by association would need common interest, and potential political gain from the spreading of information of Peak oil.

Feminist I was thinking might be a good vehicle, due to the fact that they don't want to lose everything they have worked for, they in essence, are the group that lives the most off of articifial social constructs, and are physically the weakest, therefore they have the most to lose due to Peak Oil. They would most probably be completely subverted due to Peak Oil.

They tend to be overbearing zealots, capable of brainwashing people into doing things that they wouldn't usually do, as are many powerful groups.

Many more prominent feminist are socialites, and are in situations where they can get others to do what they want.

Alot of them are eatup with Gaia, and the belief that nature is sacred, which means that they would be even more zealous for that reason to be against peak oil.

They are more heavily associated with the left in politics, than the right. The right has more vested interest in the status quo of the energy industry. The very fact that they are left, and dislike the right, would be added bonus to them campaigning for peak oil.



We need a vehicle, an already well established social force to mobilize society, and the feminist group seems like a good candidate. It is true that many of the changes that have occured due to feminist are awful, the fact that a woman can accuse a man of a crime with little vauge or no evidence, and get him thrown in prison or heavily fined shows that even though they may be despised in many cases, and for good reason, they are still a powerful social force, and a social force, which would have a great interest in preventing peak oil. Of all groups they probably have the most to lose. This would make them all out zealots to recruit more people for the cause, because they could literally tell people, "Yah, if society collapses, we will either A, be enslaved to the male pigs, or B die in the process", this fear tactic could drive them to recruit more and more people and, grow into a social force that could perhaps lessen peak oil.

The group that has the greatest interest in society not collapsing, are those with the most to lose, and women will virtually lose EVERYTHING.

I would consider religious groups, however religious groups might WANT the society to collapse, so that things become more primitive so that a theocracy may be formed. That's the biggest problem with religious groups as a vehicle, it doesn't necessarily serve their interest completely.

The Democrats and the Republicans may want to address Peak Oil, but they're both mainly after power, and we have seen how much both sides have taken to addressing this issue.

Democrats have to be very, very careful what they say, otherwise they may lose alot of political power, they can't afford to alienate groups, so they can't afford be as aggressive about Peak Oil as feminist can.

That's why I see feminist as an excellent vehicle on spreading the word about Peak Oil.

Kylon wrote: So, since the feminist interest will be completely jepradized(however you spell that), if we could convince one of the leading feminist leaders, or scholars about this, they could really mobilize a strong effort to combat peak oil.

As it happens, a friend of mine is in contact with Luce Irigaray, one of the leading feminist thinkers. I might give it a try, why not.

Irigaray herself writes in her book "I love to You", p. 99/100:

[align=justify]Energy is utilized, on the one hand, to transform man, the citizen, into a slave to preconceived notions and, on the other hand, to venerate procreation which in itself is but a natural act. Our tradition thus lives on in an unresolved contradiction between an abstract ideal, split off from concerns for growth and sensible qualities, and a veneration of life in its raw state. With this contradiction, the culture of energy is paralyzed and destroyed. Humanity remains suspended between the contemplation of certain natural phenomena and the marvels or disasters of technological energy without being able to manage its own human energy.
In this context, war still fascinates as a sort of energetic debauchery or potlatch. Whether the energy is engendered by living beings or is manufactured, notably by technology, there is sacrifice, killing, and destruction.

(...)

If we are to regulate and cultivate energy between human beings, we need language. (..) we also and especially need language that facilitates and maintains communication.[/align]

Which can be summarized by saying that in order to free ourselves from our obsession with technological energy we should redirect our human energy into getting in touch with each other. Technological energy is taken as a means of alienation, and getting beyond it would even liberate men from their obsession (this idea strongly reminds me of the agressive posture by some technocopians when they feel their belief in technology challenged in these forums).

Anyhow, there is a philosophical connection there to start with.

That's good Waegari

The greater the peak oil awareness the better.

Hopefully, we wil all be using nuclear energy in 20 years, and our economy will be trasnformed so that we don't have a massive breakdown, and we don't all die.

Kylon wrote:They tend to be overbearing zealots, capable of brainwashing people into doing things that they wouldn't usually do, as are many powerful groups.

So this is how you describe the group you want to be the bandleaders here? If I was a feminist approached by someone with an attitude like yours I'd run for the hills...

Kylon wrote:The group that has the greatest interest in society not collapsing, are those with the most to lose, and women will virtually lose EVERYTHING.

could you define everything? and also, could you explain your reasoning behind your assumption that women stand to lose "everything" as opposed to men not losing "everything" in the event of a society collapse?

Many religious organizations are zealots,

To be passionate, is to be a zealot, and they are capable of brainwashing people.

If you look at religious organizations and cults, you'll find MANY similarities.

If you look at Feminism and cults you find MANY similarities.

If you look at the hardcore Chinese Communist of the revolution period, you'll find MANY similarities to cults.

In my opinion, they function alot like a religion, or a cult, or a very strong political ideology.

That's why they can control people so easily, and rally them to their cause.

Also, I am not suggesting that I convince a feminist, due to the fact that I am poor at understanding people on an emotional basis. I have a condition which gives me superior logic abilities to the common man, however, I have emotionally stunted growth. It makes me a social outcast. It's a genetic condition. We make great engineers, researchers, and scientist however.

I know the feminist might despise me, they may hate my guts, they may loathe me, but logically, I am right. Their interest and the my interest are at this time the same. If society breaksdown, individuals such as myself will become a rarity, because we are rarely blinded by political manipulation, which makes us a very, very big threat to cult-like warlords, theocratic priest, or totalitarian beaurocrats(however that's spelled). This makes us a potential, easily solved problem to be taken care of.

So, yes, feminist may think that as an insult. But hardcore feminist are zealots, and like trying to convince someone of their ideology in a controlled atomsphere, like any religion, like revolutionary ideologies, like cults, they do brainwash people.

Kylon wrote:If Peak Oil occurs, and societal breakdown occurs, people can kiss women's rights goodbye. With mechanization, without the equalization provided by technology, women can't be as strong as men from a physical standpoint.

I disagree with the theory (presented by some feminists) that technology paved the way for feminism because it made physical strength obsolete thru mechanization.

Contrary to what some disgruntled lesbian college professor may have you believe, there were many societies throughout history that had "women's rights". The Mongols, certain Native American tribes, Arab Muslims. Yes you read that last one correctly it was NOT a mistype.

A good argument can be made that religion influences women's rights MUCH more so then technology. I remember reading this book where the author made the argument that primitive societies tend to be more gender neutral. It's actually the more "advanced" civilizations that have a greater separation between the sexes. I don't know if that's true but sure is an "interesting" theory.

BTW feminism is practically a dead topic these days. In all honesty this is the first time during this year that I have heard the word "women's rights" and "feminism" being mentioned. *seriously*

If society collapses, then many men will lose their power, men of great social status(unless they have a private army), will lose everything.

But, if everything breaks down, then might is right, people who are stronger, more powerful, will rule essentially.

Women will generally lose everything, because all the gains of the feminist movements will be lost.

Some men will come out ahead, people who are good at fighting, but who aren't necessarily the brightest bunch, or the most social, or what not, will be able to still get a good salary.

The Army will NEVER stop being paid, because they can take payment if they need it.

Think of the pre-industrial period, women will end up being reduced to that.

Okay, so if feminism isn't a good group to try and combat Peak Oil, we need another established social force, because time is short.

I have said this before...do not count on it kylon, the wheel keeps going round and round, but it rarely covers the same ground twice.

I think cube has it right.

Wow...

If we are rolling back female rights, can we reinstitute smoking on airplanes please?

I'm just sayin...

Aaron wrote:Wow...

If we are rolling back female rights, can we reinstitute smoking on airplanes please?

I'm just sayin...

Yes, as it will reduce the surplus population (as Scrooge likes to say)! Some months ago there was a thread going around about population reduction, and it just cracked me up!! It included suggestions such as:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic10093-0-asc-135.html

(from gg3): Allow the death rate to increase naturally, by canceling all campaigns against risky lifestyle behaviors. Over-eating, smoking, drinking, not exercising, risky sports such as mountain climbing, etc. etc. Subtly encourage these behaviors via changes in age limits and through advertising. Most of these behaviors also have direct effects on reproduction: obesity is a sexual turn-off, nicotine lowers libido, drunkenness causes temporary impotence in males, etc., all contributing indirectly to reduced birth rates.

Legalize and promote marijuana, opium, and heroin, all of which are known to reduce ambition, striving, and competitive behavior (lengthy psychopharmacological explanation omitted to save space). This will have the effect of reducing consumption levels of other goods, and thereby reducing resource demand. It will also reduce competition for mates, causing some individuals to drop out of the running entirely.

Promote homosexual relationships through acceptance and equality. Gay couples don't reproduce, though they often have kids via adoption. This won't convince heterosexuals to become homosexual. However, gay folks who previously would have "covered up" by having a heterosexual relationship and reproducing, would be able to live honestly rather than breeding under pressure.

For heterosexuals as well, promote sexual practices that do not involve "p/v" intercourse. Fellatio, cunnilingus, mutual masturbation, anal intercourse, various fetishes and fantasy scenarios, anything solo, and so on

(from MacSporan) How about offering financial rewards to the families of old folks who go in for voluntary enthanasia between 60 and 70?

Old geezers should be encouraged to bump themselves off.

Whatever happened to MacSporan!!??? He's great!

For some reason I think I was the only one who seemed to find these so-called solutions hilarious!

fuck up missus and get the hover out

LOL

and a Happy new year to one and all, especially femisists. Love them to bits really

Keep it diverse...association with any established social organization/movement would discredit PO before bolstering it. This board has commies, bible thumpers, fiscal conservatives, older folks, libertarians, socialists, capitalists, gun nuts, gun control nuts, hippies, teenagers, and specop_007. Crazy different backgrounds and paradigms but overall support for the basics of hydrocarbon depletion....which is why we're being taken seriously and not written off as such: 'oh never mind them, thats just those crazy feminist peak oilers with their crazy ideas of depletion and ERA'

backstop wrote:Kylon -

I'd have to differ with you on the adviseability of encouraging the decidedly partisan "feminist" movement from pushing PO awareness, as it seems to me that the PO needs to be associated with the inverted chauvinism that now passes for feminism like a hole in the head.

I totally agree, backstop.

Most people do not know that Feminism was co-opted by Big Tobacco in the 1920's, and has been their best marketing arm, ever since.

After the First World War, Big Tobacco realised that their massive investment in pre-packaged forms of tobacco (known as 'cigarettes', as they were seen as small "cigars") wasn't making the impact they needed to cover the massive costs of tooling-up to make said cigarettes.

One Edward Bernays ( a name that should be a lot better known), nephew of that charlatan, Sigmund Fraud, and ground-breaker for the use of "psychology" in advertising, was hired by one George Washington Hill, then President of the American Tobacco Company, to "fix it", to increase sales of the then new cigarettes.

And fix it Edward Bernays did: he created the 'Torches of Liberty' march, where he paid High Society (female) Debutants in New York to swagger up and down while openly smoking cigarettes. The press loved it.

This piece of PR co-option worked so well, the proto feminist movement adopted it (unknowingly, I presume) and thus the scene was set for the greatest triumph of PR over common sense: the idea that, if a girl smoked, she was (somehow) 'liberated" or "emacipated", or "empowered". This idea continues today, in spite of the best attempts (belated attempts, too) of a few Feminists to point out the health problems associated with smoking. In a survey done in the late 1990's by the then lesbian President of the Australian Medical Association, they discovered that there were two exactly equal reasons (34% each) as to why young girls were taking up smoking:

#1. To demonstrate their own 'independance'' (34%);

#2. To reduce the birth-weight of their first child (34%);

The rest of the reasons account for the rest of the percentages.

The best that the then AMA president could come up with was a sort of half-hearted bleating for young girls to change their minds.

We often hear people condemn actresses in the 1930's, 40's and 50's (and 60's and 70's, too!) about how they smoked on screen - most people do not realise that this was the original "product placement", and those actresses had clauses written into their contracts insisting they smoke.

They were put there by various PR companies, taking the lead from one Edward Bernays. He was terribly pleased (though he later said he was horrified) that the Nazis took him up on his book "Propaganda" (or Engineering Consent). Bernays was later to write about how shocked he was as to the uses the Nazi's had put his book, but he was still happy to take their money.

Ever wondered why some cigarettes are branded with such odd names, such as "Virginia Slims"? It relates to the lie put about by the PR industry: smoking reduces your weight. The PR campaign was "instead of reaching for a sweet, I reach for a Virginia Slims" said by a pretty (and thin) actress, who had a reputation for her independance. Indeed, the more that an actress established her reputation for "independance", the more Big Tobacco's PR guys wanted to sign her up. Few refused. Money, after all, means empowerment, doesn't it?

By the early 1990's Big Tobacco admitted that they were getting worried: the number of young men who were taking up the habit was dropping dramatically, at the same time as the number of older men who were quitting was rising in an unprecedented way, thanks to the persistant "anti-smoking" campaigns. Billions of dollars income for Big Tobacco seemed threatened. But by the end of the 1990's Big Tobacco cheerfully announced that their worries were over: young "empowered" females were taking up the habit of smoking in larger and larger numbers. Indeed more than enough to compensate for the awful, dreadful, hopeless, regressive men who were giving up smoking, or not taking up the habit in the first place.

It is noted dryly that the rate for Lung Cancer in younger women is now neck-and-neck with the traditionally biggest cancer: breast cancer. This is in spite of a lot of "top" Feminists talking about how awful tobacco was and how girls shouldn't smoke. One can ask the various Medical Associations & Anti-Cancer Institutes about how successful these top Feminists actually were at lowering the cancer rate.

So, returning to the suggestion: are we certain we wish to "hitch our wagon" to a movement already hopelessly co-opted & compromised by Big Tobacco, which, when push comes to shove, actually makes zero impact on Society?

I suppose not,


I am just trying to figure out ways to increase our cause to society, so that society doesn't fall, or if it does, so that the fall will be much more gentle.

I was unaware of the history of how other groups used feminism.

I do still think though, we need to find someway of spreading the information.

I was simply thinking they might make a useful allie, however, if not, and if they would be detrimental to the cause, I suppose we should avoid making a strong connection with them.

Maybe we could convince high school girls to require their prom dates
to bring them a picture of Hubbert's Peak drawn on graph paper.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that this has got to be the silliest thread I've seen on this board. On the offchance that someone is actually serious, please let me point out that radical feminism has been thoroughly discredited in this country. BTW, did you know that there's a segment of NOW who don't believe in bathing or shaving legs or underarms. Trying to ally this group with peak oil would be worse than invading Iraq. We're already known to our friends and families as crackpots. People--of whatever gender--do NOT want to hear that their way of life is coming to an end. They are in denial, they will remain in denial, and they will resist peak oil as a concept until it stops coming out of their local gas pump. This is not something radical feminists or anyone else will be able to solve.