How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:03 pm Post subject: The Female Perspective on Peak Oil
Reading the "appliance" thread, I noticed a number of posters who suggested street lights were a waste, and should be eliminated. I couldn't help but think how this would come into conflict with, for example, on-campus feminists who want to *increase* the number of street lights as a countermeasure against rape and sexual assault.
Clearly, this forum has a strong male bias. In fact, while reading the appliance thread, I kept thinking: "Sure, you may not need that appliance, but how does your wife/girlfriend/mother, who actually uses it, feel about getting rid of it?"
This also reminded me of the program "Frontier House" which I saw on public TV. In that program, a number of modern families were selected to go back and live on the land in Frontier style for a summer. No make-up, no conveniences, no energy other than that available to the pioneers (wood and kerosene, I believe). You can read about the program here:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/
Anyway, the eye-opener about that series was how hard the women's work was in those days. They were washing dishes/clothes, fetching water, cooking, sewing, milking, cleaning-up non-stop from dawn to dusk everyday. It was totally exhausting and monotonous and they complained about it. The men, on the other hand, were outside chopping wood all day and building, and generally enjoyed it and had a favorable view of the whole experience.
That's part of the male bias we have here at PO.com. Men think it's fun to rough it and go back to nature, and shoot guns in a Mad Max scenario. It's like playing cowboys and indians. Women, on the other hand, don't like it, because they can see themselves in the backdrop of this male fantasy, getting raped or rubbing their fingers to the bone on a washboard.
So my point is this: It may very well be that an energy surplus is a precondition of emancipating women from household slavery. So when we lose that surplus, how are you men going to explain the need for drudgery to your women? They may *demand* that you fix the problem by finding more energy, not by rationalizing how important it is for them to be a drudge again.
Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:45 pm Post subject: streetlights
I think this topic is a good one. But I wanted to point out that most of Europe does not use streetlights at all -- towns are pitch black unless a car comes along. And they like it that way -- not only does it help them sleep better at night due to the lack of light pollution, but is saves a phenomenal amount of energy.
You may point out that their crime rate is low so they can afford to have no streetlights. But are streetlights really preventing that much crime in the United States?
You can probably see my personal bias on the subject -- I hate streetlights. They keep you from seeing the stars and from every experiencing night -- except in the country, and even there streetlights pop up around any significant housing.
Joined: Oct 19, 2004 Posts: 108 Location: Carlisle, PA
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:09 am Post subject:
I'm female and I posted all over the thread you're referring to.
There's no necessity to split up work along gender lines except for a few cases. Some bits of heavy work can be done by males easier than by females; thus some more of the lighter work needs to be done by females.
But the majority doesn't *have* to be along gender lines. A penis does not interfere in any way with doing hand laundry.
Because we enjoy each other's company a great deal, we tend to do chores together for the most part. So we go out and mow and rake the yard and work with the animalsand garden for a few hours, then come in and fix dinner and do dishes.
Each of us uses the scythe, the shovel, the saws. And each of us does dishes by hand, hangs laundry on a clothesline, and chops food with a knfie on a cutting board.
There's a few chores only one or the other does. For insance, my husband is in charge of killing and plucking chickens cause I can't stand it. I am in charge of gutting and cutting them up and freezing them cause he can't stand that. It pretty much takes both of us to get the job done.
It's not got anything to do with feminism, just with two people working out what each prefers to do and sharing the unpleasant bits, cause frankly, even unpleasant chores aren't so bad if you have good company while you're doing them.
There's no necessity to split up work along gender lines except for a few cases. Some bits of heavy work can be done by males easier than by females; thus some more of the lighter work needs to be done by females.
The impression I got from watching Frontier House was that, in the 1880s, you needed to chop wood like crazy, in every spare moment, just to get throw the winter. The men were chopping constantly, in every spare moment, and yet, when they got evaluated at the end of the summer, none of them were even close to having enough to get by. So, in this case, having men help do the dishes and the wash would make the problem worse. It would have literally killed those people if they were really trying to survive.
In the 1880s, it was simply a matter of the men being able to put out more watts. Therefore, the women did the light work inside the home. Women ended up with the house chores because the physical power of men couldn't be wasted doing those low-watt jobs.
It may be that, in some environments, the gender separation of labor arises primarily from such practical, energy-related concerns, and not from prejudice against women. Maybe you are able to achieve a better balance with your partner because you still have a high energy subsidy. Do you use fuel driven tools and appliances to help with the hardest work?
Joined: Oct 15, 2004 Posts: 224 Location: Illinois, USA
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:52 am Post subject:
Nah, lots of electicity and appliances didn't free women--it just made their slavery at home shorter and easier. I think that, only when we realize that it isn't just the woman's job to do household chores and raise children that women will be truly free.
It seems to me that it's mostly our obsession with comfort and control over others that causes us to use so much energy (either by our own work, or by electricity). I know that, before the Europeans came over, many of the indigenous tribes of North America got along fine without working all day long or treating men and women like two different species.
That stuff about lighting and stuff seems reasonable though.
Joined: Apr 06, 2004 Posts: 257 Location: Sydney, Australia
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:04 am Post subject:
Don't know anything about frontier living, but...
Jared Diamond observed in places like Papua New Guinea woman did virtually all labour. Not just the light stuff but hauling goods etc. It brings to mind white collar men in pre-sexual revolution times going off to work to shuffle paper around while their wives were flat-out all day with the kids and the house work etc... I guess the hunter-gatherer equivalent was the men going out "hunting" (probably, locating local intoxicating plants or brewing primitive beer) all day while women worked flat out back at the camp!
I agree with male bias bit with PO.com by the way, but I suspect that has to do with internet demographics. It seem about 2/3 of internet users are male in the U.S, in Europe only a 1/5 of users were women! (statistics are a pretty dated though... 1998) _________________ Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1195 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:30 am Post subject:
You have to take into account the clothing fashions in the washing up dilemma as well. In 1880 women wore those huge dresses with multiple petticoats and long under trousers. All that cloth would take time to clean. It doesn't take long to wash shorts and teeshirts by hand. Allthough sheets and towels and especially blankets can be a problem. I'm sure we could figure a few low energy timesavers. Windmills have been used for centuries to pump water and run flour mills. It shouldn't be too hard to modify windmill power to run a washing machine and even a spin drier using gears to build up the spin speed. You could design a wide range of tools that could be run by windmill or steam if you used a little ingenuity. Or energy efficient appliances could be run from electricity generated from solar cells, wind energy, steam generator or a small hydroelectric generater from a dam or waterfall. We know of a better life. There is no way we will just slip back to a 19th century level of technology without trying to modify some of the best of modern appliances and tools.
Joined: May 16, 2004 Posts: 162 Location: Rural, Indiana.
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:45 am Post subject:
One has to remember back in those days you wore your clothes for numerous days since you did have to hand wash them. How would most of todays society handle that?
Does the local climate affect this formula? _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
The impression I got from watching Frontier House was that, in the 1880s, you needed to chop wood like crazy, in every spare moment, just to get through the winter. The men were chopping constantly, in every spare moment, and yet, when they got evaluated at the end of the summer, none of them were even close to having enough to get by. So, in this case, having men help do the dishes and the wash would make the problem worse. It would have literally killed those people if they were really trying to survive.
It is my recollection that two of the families were judged to have chopped so little wood as to threaten their survival, but one family managed to get enough done. It was the well-adjusted newlywed couple with a good sense of humor that managed to make it. The other families were either a) at war with each other or b) not using common sense and wasting a huge amount of time on non-essential activities that happened to interest them. All of the drama came on the show came from the family at war and the humorous interludes were provided by that happy, well-adjusted couple.
But one constant thread in the program: the men were extremely happy with the situation and the women were pretty unhappy. The men liked being outside, chopping wood, constructing a home and hunting. The women hated hanging out inside and cleaning and preparing food.
Joined: May 26, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Zoorope
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:24 am Post subject:
Who told you in Europe we don't have street lights?
We have street lights almost everywhere, in tiny villages too. Belgium have lights on highways, you can see them from Moon, it's the most lightened area on the whole Earth!
And hey, it's true: if you switch off the street lights, women will be forced to stay at home at night and not go out alone. Back to those good ole times? _________________ **no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:46 am Post subject: Re: The Female Perspective on Peak Oil
JohnDenver wrote:
Reading the "appliance" thread, I noticed a number of posters who suggested street lights were a waste, and should be eliminated. I couldn't help but think how this would come into conflict with, for example, on-campus feminists who want to *increase* the number of street lights as a countermeasure against rape and sexual assault.
Sign of warped thinking: only "feminists" want to counter rape and sexual assault? Why only feminists? Don't women in general want to counter rape and sexual assault?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
