I felt a little frisson of interest and anticipation when I saw an article at Energy Bulletin entitled “Gender Issues”. I thought it might be a long-overdue discussion of gender and technocracy, gender and industrial technology, gender and power and recklessness, risk discounting, and other interesting issues. I thought it might address the dysfunctionality of traditional definitions of masculinity, or the restriction of social power to a mostly-male elite, and how our present predicament is exacerbated by same. Alas, it was a minor disappointment.
The article in question turned out to be a half-hearted discussion of gender and peak oil, diverting quickly into a not-terribly-well-informed swipe at feminism and a prediction that Peak Oil will put women firmly back where they belong (as domestic servants and sidekicks to dominant males) — and that this is really all the fault of those damn feminists.
Or maybe I read it with a jaundiced eye. Anyway it seems that we might have a higher quality of discussion here, and the article makes a starting point. I do worry about the erosion of “social equality” gains in the Collapse scenario — for women, furriners, brown people, gay people, in various contexts (where men dominate, where nationalist sentiment is a response to crisis, where whitefolks rule, where gender revanchism is a response to crisis, etc.)
I can agree with the author’s description of *liberal* feminism up to a point (though he never bothers to discover that there are other flavours of feminism). After that he pretty much lost this reader For a start, I happen to believe that both “patriarchy” and “capitalism” have fairly well-defined meaning. Anyway, I have real-world fish to fry so this is a post-on-the-fly. Will return later to say something more.