Repurposed feminism - Why we still need it

[Seli]

Religion and philosophy address many of the same subjects. That does not mean that both are "science."

Also, I'd like an honest answer from the peanut gallery: would anyone here feel differently if the suggestion was that the civil rights movement that ended Jim Crow take some constructive advice and learn to use reason and logic instead of emotional reaction?

It would be the same fallacy. It is claiming that just because people are emotional and involved their reasoning and logic are not sound. It probably* runs into the same highly problematic issues because the people involved in the rights movement already are the ones painted as non-rational and emotional (in contrast to the logical conservatives), so it is referring to ingrained biases and caricatures.

*certainly for women, and I believe for african americans in the USA as well (and most likely any non WASP or European equivalent)

[MinDonner]

:stunned: at this thread. There's been some stiff competition over the years, but this may be the actual worst feminism thread we've ever had. Luckily I saved some sabre-toothed tigers from previous incarnations *unleashes them to devour the entire internet*

[Galactus]

It really is impressive how we can get a new batch of people with every thread, who keeps rethreading exactly the same argument, only for them to leave and never be heard of again aftera couple of threads.

[TrueMetis]

I don't particularly find this fair at all. Women were oppressed for thousands of years and then prejudiced against and still are, whereas a lot of issues concerning men can be tackled within the sphere of feminism. perhaps it should be given a new name? who knows? but to criticisize the movement for being called feminism in the first place is a pretty silly thing to do and to dismiss hundreds and thousands of years of women being lesser than men, of COURSE women would discover that issue first.

Thousand of years? Think you exaggerating, for most of human history equality was default outside of the nobility because otherwise meant death.

You don't see one person in this having to undergo either major abdominal surgery or a fairly major and risk-prone medical procedure, as well as several other significant health risks, as an inequality?

Piss off, you're an idiot. A) nobody said male on female violence was worse, just more prevalent and often more condoned by society. Also, the physical imbalance often swings it in favor of being more dangerous for the woman. B) as long as there are significant health risks for the woman that are not present for the man re: birth, there IS going to be inequality. You'll also find, I think, that feminist thought and actions are responsible for there even being the idea of paternity leave, and feminists are very quick to point the many, many ways that patriarchal thought hurts men as well.

Eh, I'm really not batting well in this thread. Forgot to clarify definitions before starting a long and stupid argument and now getting sucked into a discussion well below "feminism 101". I'm done for a bit.

Isn't the most prevalent and condoned form of violence male on male? Or does this include sexual violence?

Religion and philosophy address many of the same subjects. That does not mean that both are "science."

Also, I'd like an honest answer from the peanut gallery: would anyone here feel differently if the suggestion was that the civil rights movement that ended Jim Crow take some constructive advice and learn to use reason and logic instead of emotional reaction?

Maybe this is just me but I never considered Philosophy science.

OK so you want authority here you go:

I've seen part of that discussion before, and I don't really think it helps your point. Though I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Oh my god, if you can stand to put a little distance between yourself and the material, that Married Man Sex Life guy is hilariously awful. "Very tight logic" - as if appending "like an Alpha" onto everything you approve of is a masterstroke of critical thinking. It's okay to vacuum or make your wife coffee or do your own laundry as long as you do it all "like an alpha" and not some sniveling beta male.

Some gems...

All I know is that all these women proudly saying “the children come first” are keeping me in business.

Because you know that somewhere in the background there’s a hollow-eyed man raking the leaves out of the gutters… thinking about what he just read on MMSL… and how he’s sick of her not fucking him right.

But it’s also why husbands need to be the Captain. SAHM’s eat up a Firm, Fair and Frisky husband with a spoon. If a SAHM has been sufficiently bored to the point where the mailman arriving is an event, the arrival of her husband is a much bigger event to look forward too. If he can fight the natural inclination to walk through the door and go completely off-duty, there’s a lot to be said for allowing her ten minutes of undivided attention to disgorge her daily report.

Sigh! Listening to your woman "disgorge" her ten minute daily report (ie: talk about her unimportant day!) is such a drag.

On the appropriate ratio and style of displays of 'affection' around the house:

If you’ve been running about your house like Virginity Pledge Care Bear and need a good rule of thumb for displays of affection to get yourself under better control, use the ye olde Roissy Golden Ratio approach. For every three instances of her initiating the display of affection, you should initiate two times.

Ideally your two times should involve things like kissing the back of her neck, lightly dry humping her ass, deep kisses where you lightly touch her face or gently pull her hair.

Aaaaaaand the one that really strikes at the heart of his philosophy and lays it all bare:

The only reason that really motivates a man to have an interest in a woman is sexual. I realize I’m painting with a broad brush here, I’m sure all you ladies reading have wonderful appealing personalities and whatever else it is you think you bring to the table. Trust me… your wonderful charming man that’s great with the kids… he married you for your pussy and that’s about it.

Don't be offended. It's all Sciency and bound by very tight logic.

[mormont]

Thousand of years? Think you exaggerating, for most of human history equality was default outside of the nobility because otherwise meant death.

Let me be clear about this - you're suggesting that or most of human history, most women had equal rights? Can you be a bit more specific? Which periods are you ruling out (ie periods in which you admit there was not equality)? Are you limiting your claim to periods and areas with good historical records? How do we know that the nobility were different in these periods? I mean, if you're going to make a very big historical claim, I'd expect to see something backing it up.

[Noontidal]

Let me be clear about this - you're suggesting that or most of human history, most women had equal rights?

I suspect by "equal rights" it is meant "no rights". Yeah, I actually have evidence to support that idea... Actually there is a good bit of evidence of egalitarian societies that in small segments still exist. Instead of pointlessly backing up that claim - breastfeeding men. That is all.

[Theda Baratheon]

Thousand of years? Think you exaggerating, for most of human history equality was default outside of the nobility because otherwise meant death.

Look,, I really don't want to get all ''obnoxious'' here. But really? I'm exaggerating? You only have to look at Ancient Athens which was, yes, thousands of years ago, to see a nice clear example of women being sub-human. You know, I really find it funny that you are telling me that I'm exaggerating and then presume to give me a one sentence history lesson.

I could write you a 2000 word essay on women of the Ancient world but I'm too busy finishing off my Odyssey essay at the moment.

[Guest Raidne]

Galactus, I don't think philosophy is a science either. Ambiguous phrasing on my part

[TrueMetis]

Let me be clear about this - you're suggesting that or most of human history, most women had equal rights? Can you be a bit more specific? Which periods are you ruling out (ie periods in which you admit there was not equality)? Are you limiting your claim to periods and areas with good historical records? How do we know that the nobility were different in these periods? I mean, if you're going to make a very big historical claim, I'd expect to see something backing it up.

Well, in so far as no one had rights at all, but what I'm actually talking about is skill dominated, especially pre-argiculture. If you could hunt you would hunt, if you could fish, everyone would be doing what was best for the community. While there may be jobs that where predominately one sex or the other, like hunting being mostly male, if a women was able to hunt there was very little stopping them.

Post-agriculture it largely the same, when one bad harvest means death it's going to be a requirement for men and women to share the workload equally.

[Sci-2]

I'm just amused that being a stay at home parent is supposedly easy.

[MinDonner]

"Sharing the workload" seems a rather cherry-picked definition of equality. Who got to inherit? Who got to decide who they would marry? Who was allowed to join the guilds/learn to read/etc etc etc? Come on now.

[mormont]

Well, in so far as no one had rights at all, but what I'm actually talking about is skill dominated, especially pre-argiculture. If you could hunt you would hunt, if you could fish, everyone would be doing what was best for the community. While there may be jobs that where predominately one sex or the other, like hunting being mostly male, if a women was able to hunt there was very little stopping them.

Post-agriculture it largely the same, when one bad harvest means death it's going to be a requirement for men and women to share the workload equally.

Right, so you're basically talking about how you imagine things were, and are not dealing with actual facts?

If so, I see no particular reason why anybody should take the statement seriously.

[Noontidal]

You only have to look at Ancient Athens which was, yes, thousands of years ago, to see a nice clear example of women being sub-human.

This is the sort of wording that makes it impossible to take this discussion seriously. Sub-human. It does not mean what you think it means and your invented definition is part and parcel of this sort of discussion. Yet this foolishness gets discussed, and big changes that would represent a true massive fulcrum adjustment like male breastfeeding does not.

Sci- it's not easy, I just happen to be better at it than most.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I hate to be the guy posting definitions, but I'll do it. subhuman

[Sci-2]

Sci- it's not easy, I just happen to be better at it than most.

Huh? I was refuting the whole series of quotes and posts about how a SAHM should be overjoyed to see her husband come home because she's so bored with nothing to do.

[TrueMetis]

"Sharing the workload" seems a rather cherry-picked definition of equality. Who got to inherit? Who got to decide who they would marry? Who was allowed to join the guilds/learn to read/etc etc etc? Come on now.

Have we just been narrowed down to the middle ages Europe?

[Theda Baratheon]

This is the sort of wording that makes it impossible to take this discussion seriously. Sub-human. It does not mean what you think it means and your invented definition is part and parcel of this sort of discussion. Yet this foolishness gets discussed, and big changes that would represent a true massive fulcrum adjustment like male breastfeeding does not.

I find this quite insulting.

OK. Here I go.

• Father controlled woman before woman was married.
  
• Husband controlled woman whilst woman was married.
  
• Life expectancy of woman around 35 years old as her body would be worn out from all the child-bearing.
  
• For a woman to divorce a man, she would have to find an archon and then convince him to let the divorce happen.
  
• For a man to divorce he only needed to confine his wife to the house and the father could just break up the marriage, whereupon she would go home and wait to be married again.
  
• Husband controlled all of woman's property. (any inherited property would go directly to the husband)
  
• She had no rights to just walk around the town.
  
• Virtually no political rights of any kind and were controlled by men their whole lives. (no rights to vote or take part in operation of the state.
  
• Were not permitted to watch certain games and festivals, ie, Olympic games.
  
• Limited access to society
  
• Women were seen to represent chaos and views as purely sexual beings who could not control their sexual urges.
  
• ‘If only children could be got some other way without the female sex! If women didn’t exist, human life would be rid of all its miseries’. These two authors depict the most constant view of women in ancient times. Most men felt that women were only necessary to produce children.
  

And that was just the ATHENIAN UPPER CLASS women.

So excuse me for being ''ridiculous''

Sub-human, in terms of being regarded as not fully human makes perfect sense in comparison to the men.

Women were viewed as sinister, chaotic, inferior, weak, baby making machines and nothing more to a lot of men. And these records that we have of ancient times are written by the SCHOLARS, the ACADEMICS.

So I fail to see why i'm somehow being a ''fool'' for pointing out that women thousands of years ago ie in Ancient Athens were viewed as lesser and inferior and were oppressed.

[Sci-2]

true massive fulcrum adjustment like male breastfeeding does not.

?

[Galactus]

Were not permitted to watch certain games and festivals, ie, Olympic games.

To further elaborate, greek religion (And games and festivals were definitely religious in Greece) was highly gendered, but there were important festivals that were women-only as well.

Life expectancy of woman around 35 years old as her body would be worn out from all the child-bearing.

This is slightly misleading: It's a typical case of eary mortality skewing the results. Women who reached the age of 5 or so could expect to become at least 40-50 and had a good chance of becoming older, only slightly worse than men.

Agree on the overall point though.