judith stein

i-burn-i-pine-i-perish  asked:

hi! love the tumblr, i just wondered if you had any book recs that specifically were about/examples of queer theory as a concept./ whether you had any classic (also hopefully ones older than 1950s? if not thats fine!) queer recs that aren't just about white gay dudes. Thanks!

I haven’t read a lot of queer theory myself, but Queer Theory: An Introduction by Annamarie Jagose and  Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer by Riki Anne Wilchins might be good places to start. The works of Judith Butler, Sara Ahmed and José Esteban Muñoz have also been recommended to me.

For queer books older than the 1950s that don’t just feature white dudes, here’s a few:

However, all of these (as far as I know) were written by and feature white people. I had a hard time finding any queer works pre-1950 by people of color, but here are a few “queer classics” by people of color from 1950-1990:

As always, readers who know any more books that fit this ask are encouraged to reblog and recommend!

When the economy began growing at the end of 1991, it was a ‘jobless recovery.’  Unemployment was 7.3 percent when Clinton took office in January 1993, and the first quarter registered growth of only 0.5 percent.  The numbers were pulled and pushed by tumultuous global challenges: the United States was now the world’s largest debtor, it suffered an enduring trade deficit, and it faced competition from Japan and a cohesive European Community.  Russia, China, and Eastern Europe were now part of the global economy.  As governor of Arkansas, Clinton had no need to reflect on these developments.  His campaign slogan 'Putting People First’ and the understanding of the global economy were lifted from his Oxford friend Robert Reich’s Work of Nation (1991).

Reich thought that the changing nature of labor (from production to symbolic manipulation) and the globalization of production meant that ending income inequality and stagnant wages required helping Americans obtain the (high-tech) skills that corporations, whether American or foreign, needed.  Globalization was inevitable and progressive, if workers improved their proficiency.  Because it did not matter if Americans worked for domestic or foreign corporations, Reich opposed industrial policies, which he renamed corporate welfare.  He supported 'free trade’ treaties.  Focusing on education, which Clinton had championed in Arkansas- and which George Bush promoted, too- reinforced the convention wisdom.  If the uneducated worker was the cause of rising inequality, then public schools and even the worker himself were at fault.

But was Reich’s vision of global dynamics accurate?  Reich assumed that corporations required better-trained workers for the new technology.  Yet economics found that the admired Japanese lean production relied on workers who demonstrated dexterity, enthusiasm, and ability to 'fit into the mean,’ but not on high educational and vocational qualifications.  Put another way, Caterpillar emerged victorious from the United Auto Workers’ long strike in November 1995 because temporary help could replace its striking workers.  Training can help individuals.  But it is utopian to imagine that education can generate secure, well-paid, and high-skilled jobs.  Reich assumed that the growing wage gap between college- and high school-educated workers was the result of the former’s skill.  But changes in government labor policies, which led to declining minimum wages and union membership, were more responsible for the wages of high school graduates.  Structural factors such as the shift from high-paying manufacturing to low-paying service industries- steel to fast-food restaurants- and increased trade competition with low-wage countries explained the growth of wage inequality better than education did.  After all, why didn’t Europe experience growing income inequality despite its use of technology?  Moreover, inequality increased faster from 1977 to 1992, when growth, productivity, and technical change were meager.  Finally, after 1989, compensation for CEOs increased 100 percent while that for jobs related to math and computer science rose only 4.8 percent, and engineering fell 1.4 percent.

Robert Kuttner, whose book The End of Laissez Faire (1991) was published at the same time as Reich’s, found globalization more problematic.  Kuttner believed that international markets were not benign and that the changing exchange rates, new technologies, and global investments destroyed jobs and communities as well as created opportunities for symbolic workers.  Unlike Reich, he argued that neither the Europeans nor the Japanese practiced global liberalism.  The Japanese conglomerates was and will always be Japanese, which meant that even when forced to produce abroad, it keeps the best jobs at home.  America’s free-market obsession had allowed massive foreign penetration without a quid pro quo.  Jimmy Carter permitted foreign firms to take advantage of its deregulated telecommunications market without equivalent access.  The U.S. government intervened often but with a hodgepodge of ineffective measures.  Ronald Reagan imposed import quotas for Japanese cars without planning for Detroit’s revival.  Kuttner embraced an industrial policy to support high-wage jobs in the United States.  But he also believed that the world economy needed new rules, stronger global institutions to penalize countries that ran chronic trade surpluses, and common standards for international investment.  He supported managed trade like the global Multi Fiber agreement for textiles and advocated a similar one for steel.

— 

Judith Stein, “The Pivotal Decade”

Welp this partially explains the TPP

There is a profound difference between (what I will refer to as) a ‘liberated woman’ and a feminist. The liberated woman doesn’t really see past herself. She wants (competes for, and often wins) equal pay for equal work, more respect and prestige in the society, more orgasms, higher status - in short, shewants to 'make it in a man’s world’. Insofar as she appears to dominate the women’s movement the accusations of 'middle-class!’ are justified. The feminist, however, sees herself as part of a broad movement. She understands the implications of sisterhood and marxism. She does not strive for a bigger piece of the male-defined pie, but rather towards a society where not only all women, but all people are able to define their own existences.
—  Judith Stein, For a Truly Feminist Art (1972)

The quadrupling of oil prices in 1973-74 had increased industrial costs at the same time that international competition made it difficult to recover those costs with higher prices.  With global capacity at all-time highs and demand shrinking, profits tumbled.  Capitalists were less likely to invest in new plants and equipment for fear that they would lie idle.  Investors were skittish in the developed countries, but elsewhere they were eager.  During the recession of 1975, industrial production in developing countries- South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil- increased 8.5 percent.  And, they were selling in the markets of advanced countries, especially the United States.  The newest manufacturing competition produced a dilemma for the industrial powers.  Capitalists lacked incentives to invest at home.  During the four Carter years, American banks and companies nearly tripled foreign investments.  But domestic investment was the key to reviving productivity, competitiveness, and growth.  Without growth, unemployment could not be reduced- the very reason that, unlike the United States, Germany and other European countries and Japan employed industrial policies and kept out goods from developing nations.  The U.S. trade deficit jumped from $9.5 billion in 1976 to $31.1 billion in 1977 and $34 billion in 1978, despite a cheaper dollar.  The increased openness of the U.S. economy- integrated finance, floating exchange rates, global trade, unencumbered capital flows- reduced the potency of Keynesian policies on the domestic economy.  Some portion of the U.S. stimulus stimulated foreign economies.  The United States was left with budget deficits, inflation, and rising imports.

When imports flooded the U.S. market as a result of these policies, government blamed industry.  Critics claimed that high prices and high wages made domestic goods uncompetitive and caused inflation.  Carter was part of this growing anti-industrial of postindustrial army in the Democratic Party.  Oligopoly, pollution, and now inflation were the trinity of industrial sin.  Carter believed that ‘trade can play an important role in the fight against inflation.’  Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) chair Charles Schultze recognized that business investment was anemic but believed that 'it is not a problem because of ample capacity abroad.’  And if it was not ample, the United States would help- abroad, not at home.  The Export-Import Bank approved a $17.9 million loan to South Korea’s government-owned steel company to finance equipment for a new mill.  The policy of welcoming imports and ignoring job loss was at the heart of the problem the Carter administration had with the labor movement during its first two years.  But then the December 1978 Iranian revolution doubled the price of oil, yielding inflation rates of 11 percent, and forced Carter to rethink his policy.  This new inflation could not be blamed on industry or labor

—  Judith Stein, “Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance in the Seventies”