starwolf_oakley: (Default)
[personal profile] starwolf_oakley posting in [community profile] scans_daily
Here is a repost of a page from Brian Bendis' DAREDEVIL run. Issue #56 has Ben Urich giving a "history of crime" to an unknown person. Also it ties into a New York Times editorial and a short look at early 20th century Feminism, just so you know. I mention Andrea Dworkin, Ray Bradbury and Upton Sinclair, because why not?



Daredevil v2 056-004.jpg

I wouldn't say "no reason." The people responsible for Prohibition simply didn't understand (or couldn't fathom) how far some people would go for booze. In the late 1980s some thought marijuana would be fully legal and regulated by the year 2000. Others think MDMA could be legalized in five years time.

From the New York Times editorial
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/opinion/sunday/patriarchy-feminism-metoo.html

The most popular women’s mobilization of the 19th century wasn’t for suffrage — it was for Prohibition, a moral crusade against demon men drinking demon rum, blowing their paychecks at the saloon and coming home to beat and rape their wives. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union quickly became the nation’s largest women’s organization.

Did that war against men behaving badly feed into the larger battle for women’s equality? In many ways, yes: Susan B. Anthony herself began as a temperance organizer. But a good number of women who railed against alcohol’s evils shrank from women’s suffrage. Fighting against male drunkenness fell within the time-honored female purview of defending the family and the body; extending women’s rights into a new political realm felt more radical and less immediate.


When I posted this back in 2009, some comments were about early 20th century feminism, and how the movement limited itself with "neo-Puritanism."

[personal profile] halialkers:
Nah, religion and feminism were both deeply intertwined in this. The Cady Moss and Stanton-era feminists really truly believed that they could create progress and civilize men by outlawing booze. The Volstead Act provides one of the major reasons I'm always skeptical about moralizing reform movements in general, all this did was make bad people richer, as Urich points out.


[personal profile] box_in_the_box:
I suspect this is one of the ways in which feminism pretty much permanently damaged itself as a movement for generations to come. Yes, the patriarchy should bear its fair share of the blame for demonizing the idea that *gasp!* women should receive legal, social and economic freedoms equal to those enjoyed by men, but feminism also shot itself in the foot by making itself out to be a neo-Puritanical movement from its outset, which successive generations of anti-feminists have succeeded in portraying feminism as ever since (with ample help from those feminists who really WERE neo-Puritans, such as Andrea "All sex is rape" Dworkin).


[personal profile] starwolf_oakley:
I post a page from Bendis' DAREDEVIL run, we get a look at early to mid 20th century feminism. This board rocks.

More "radical" forms of feminism always remind me of this bit from "Just Shoot Me."

Maya Gallo: All my feminist friends agree that the covers for Blush are sexist.
Elliot DiMauro: Are these the same friends who think all intercourse is an act of violence?
Maya Gallo: Jan and Gertie, yes.



[personal profile] halialkers
Yep. Scans_Daily in a nutshell.

And that's pretty much radicalism in a nutshell as it is.


Wikipedia says:
"Intercourse" is a 1987 book by Andrea Dworkin, in which Dworkin offers a radical feminist analysis of sexual intercourse in literature and society. Dworkin is often said to argue that "all heterosexual sex is rape", based on the line from the book that says "violation is a synonym for intercourse." However, Dworkin has denied this interpretation, stating, "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."

What the author wants to say and what the audience "gets" can be two very different things. Ray Bradbury said "Fahrenheit 451" wasn't about government censorship, but about how mass media reduces interest in reading literature. Upton Sinclair's novel "The Jungle" led to the creation of the FDA. “I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach,” Sinclair said.

Date: 2018-01-02 03:10 pm (UTC)
commodus: (Default)
From: [personal profile] commodus
I don't really agree with Ben here. The fact that fighting alcoholism or drug addiction is a hopeless battle doesn't mean society should just roll over and accept that some people are going to fall through the cracks and ruin their lives. These things should still be fought, because it is the morally right thing to do.

Date: 2018-01-02 11:04 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] donnblake
I would agree with that, but I'm not sure that criminalizing the consumption of those things is the only or the best way to go about fighting it.

Date: 2018-01-03 04:01 am (UTC)
commodus: (Default)
From: [personal profile] commodus
Certainly it requires more than punitive prison sentences. Society needs to understand WHY people use drugs, and the social conditions which create drug dealers, and treat them both with compassion and understanding.
An unfair economic system can make people desperate, and make them do the most awful things just to survive.

Date: 2018-01-03 04:01 pm (UTC)
goattoucher: (Brimley)
From: [personal profile] goattoucher
Humanity has had alcohol longer than we have had written language. It was a fluid byproduct of preserving vegetables by burying them, perfected over the millennia. I don't deal in absolutes lightly, but you will -never- get rid of alcohol.

Substance abuse is a very real problem in our society. The reason the "Vice" squads still exist is because there are millions of pathological people who would spend all their money on drugs, gambling, or prostitution. If they were the only victims, so be it, but their families also suffer, go hungry, and end up on the street because all their income is squandered on the breadwinner satisfying their addiction.

The solution is counselling. The solution is mental health care. The solution is approaching every individual and giving them the help they need.

But that is expensive, and people consider addicts second class citizens, and don't want to "waste" any money on them. So instead of expensive (and effective) counselling, we get "cheap" (billions spent on the DEA every year) prohibition. If you do drugs, you go to jail. -That- will teach you (no it won't).

It's the same with the American Penal System: punishment rather than rehabilitation. Sending criminals to spend years where there is nothing to do but become better criminals (because all the inmate education funds dried up after they started to learn the law, exonerate themselves, and sue the government). And we are shocked, -shocked- that our recidivism rate is so high, and instead of interpreting this as a massive failure in the system, we interpret it as further evidence that those people are worthless.

Prohibition did create organized crime in America. That is established. By virtue of crime becoming a business, you had to have CEO's: Urich's "Kingpins".

Date: 2018-01-05 11:03 am (UTC)
kore: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kore
Prohibition was deeply stupid and Puritanical, but WWI ended 11 November 1918. The whole country didn't go dry until 17 January 1920, and there were anti-liquor laws during and before the war. Temperance movements go back to before the Civil War. And Arnold Rothstein got his start in sports and gambling, not bootlegging. -- No, I don't expect historical accuracy from a comic, but I personally think Bendis's central idea here is flawed.

Profile

scans_daily: (Default)
Scans Daily

Extras

Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, [community profile] scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, [community profile] scans_daily is probably not for you.

Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.

April 2019

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags