Feminism

[luiz]

Agreed, things start to swing back hard, even in this situation, once a woman starts to be perceived(since the reality matters less than the perception here) as post menopausal. Which ties back onto my earlier comment of which demographics are generally seen as the most worthless or possibly even actively harmful members of society: old women and young adult males, respectively.

That's as far as I'm willing to state though. When generalizing, regardless of social equality, if you have to reduce life to "which one is more valuable" you get stuck with "more life > less life" Which leaves women worth more than men. Anything else is monstrous and leads to your logic on rich vs poor life.

So it's all subjective, just like determining who is a kid and who is a young man.

But that's not the main point here. The point is that society has chosen a metric which values women's lives more than men's lives. Defending this metric only reinforces this point! So no, women were not "non-persons", they were not universally less important, they were not analogous to slaves.

 

[Zack]

But that's not the main point here. The point is that society has chosen a metric which values women's lives more than men's lives. Defending this metric only reinforces this point! So no, women were not "non-persons", they were not universally less important, they were not analogous to slaves.

Not really. That's a significant leap in logic from "women and children first" to "women were never oppressed in any way." Clearly the opinions of women were not valued, since they couldn't vote. It's pretty damning that men could vote, and women couldn't - it implies that women are less important. I think the bigger reason for the "women and children first" mentality was that men felt they needed to protect those weaker than them, i.e. women and children. The idea being that after the women and children were saved, the men could save themselves, whereas the reverse isn't true.

Have you ever flown on an airplane, by the way? Ever notice how they specifically instruct you to save yourself before even thinking about saving others, such as your child or spouse?

 

[Farm Boy]

So it's all subjective, just like determining who is a kid and who is a young man.

But that's not the main point here. The point is that society has chosen a metric which values women's lives more than men's lives. Defending this metric only reinforces this point! So no, women were not "non-persons", they were not universally less important, they were not analogous to slaves.

Choosing the metric that more likely life > less likely life does not implicate that specific value judgement even if in actual practice(particularly emergencies) that is difficult to parse without any subjectiveness at all. It's like all good social science. It's more accurate the farther you zoom out. Females aren't worth more because social values, females are worth more because when aggregated 1 unit female humanity = "more life" than aggregated 1 unit male humanity.

 

[luiz]

Not really. That's a significant leap in logic from "women and children first" to "women were never oppressed in any way." Clearly the opinions of women were not valued, since they couldn't vote. I think the bigger reason for the "women and children first" mentality was that men felt they needed to protect those weaker than them, i.e. women and children. The idea being that after the women and children were saved, the men could save themselves, whereas the reverse isn't true.

Well yes it's a significant leap of logic, and one that neither I nor anyone here ever made. My point was that while women obviously lacked some rights, and had the worst end in many regards, it is also true that in other regards they were privileged, and men got the worst end.

As for your second point, it would only be true if the rule only applied in cases where it was possible to rescue those left behind late. But in fact it also applies when being left behind means certain death. So women's lives were/are indeed deemed more valuable.

Have you ever flown on an airplane, by the way? Ever notice how they specifically instruct you to save yourself before even thinking about saving others, such as your child or spouse?

Several times a week.
And no, it's not about saving yourself before. It's about the specific case of the oxygen mask, in which it is safer to put it in yourself first so you don't collapse while trying to put it in others.

 

[luiz]

Choosing the metric that more likely life > less likely life does not implicate that specific value judgement even if in actual practice(particularly emergencies) that is difficult to parse without any subjectiveness at all. It's like all good social science. It's more accurate the farther you zoom out. Females aren't worth more because social values, females are worth more because when aggregated 1 unit female humanity = "more life" than aggregated 1 unit male humanity.

And that is contingent on a bunch of subjective definitions... so what??

The point is that female lives are deemed more valuable! What is humanity, what is "more life", all of those are subjective and dependent on social mores. If they were really considered by society as "non-persons" or whatever, than aggregated 1 unit female humanity = "less life" than aggregated 1 unit male humanity. So slaves, who unlike females were actually considered non-persons, were also considered as "less life" and "less humanity" or however you want to put it.

 

[Farm Boy]

And that is contingent on a bunch of subjective definitions... so what??

The point is that female lives are deemed more valuable! What is humanity, what is "more life", all of those are subjective and dependent on social mores. If they were really considered by society as "non-persons" or whatever, than aggregated 1 unite female humanity = "less life" than aggregated 1 unite male humanity. So slaves, who unlike females were actually considered non-persons, were also considered as "less life" and "less humanity" or however you want to put it.

If you aggregate all female human life, then you aggregate all male human life, the only required subjective definition, if you view it as subjective, is that pregnant humans count as two lives, one of them very young. That's all it takes and the average weight of life per human falls heavier on females than males.

 

[Crezth]

Well yes it's a significant leap of logic, and one that neither I nor anyone here ever made. My point was that while women obviously lacked some rights, and had the worst end in many regards, it is also true that in other regards they were privileged, and men got the worst end.

This is only true in the sense that some slaves were "privileged" since they did not have to pay for room and board or worry about the stress of voting in elections.

 

[luiz]

If you aggregate all female human life, then you aggregate all male human life, the only required subjective definition, if you view it as subjective, is that pregnant humans carry two lives, one of them very young. That's all it takes and the average weight of life per human falls heavier in females than males.

I'm not very interested, at the moment, with the whole slave thing.

And the implicit assumption here is that a female life is considered to be worth "at least as much" as a male life.

Because otherwise (that is, if male life was considered more important), even taking into account the possibility of pregnancy, the logic step would be to save males first, as only a small minority of females are likely to be pregnant and only half of those with male babies.

So the women first rule does indeed prove that women's lives were considered more valuable, and thus women were not non-persons or whatever.

 

[luiz]

This is only true in the sense that some slaves were "privileged" since they did not have to pay for room and board or worry about the stress of voting in elections.

Again the slavery analogy.

Women were not "spared" only voting and other privileges. They were also spared dying by the millions in wars they didn't understand, being left to drown in shipwrecks, taking the worst of the worst jobs (yes, they also did horrible jobs, but look at accident and mortality rates in the workplaces and see that males were and still are far more likely to suffer grave injuries or die).

Which is not to say they "had it easy" or were not discriminated against! It's a great thing that we achieved a much larger degree of equality. But let's not re-write history in that manicheistic and cartoonish tone of women=oppressed, men=oppressor. That's just BS.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is only true in the sense that some slaves were "privileged" since they did not have to pay for room and board or worry about the stress of voting in elections.

"[T]he institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth. [...] Knowing what we know today about life on the African continent, would an existence spent in slavery have been any crueler than a life spent in sub-Saharan Africa?"

-Arkansas State Rep. Jon Hubbard (R)

So, it's certainly a position that some on the right choose to take.

 

[Zack]

Which is not to say they "had it easy" or were not discriminated against! It's a great thing that we achieved a much larger degree of equality. But let's not re-write history in that manicheistic and cartoonish tone of women=oppressed, men=oppressor. That's just BS.

So unless women had it "worse" in literally every possible aspect, there was no oppression? Isn't a situation where men hold a monopoly on all positions of control and leadership, where only men can vote, hold land, etc... how the hell is that not oppressive?

 

[Flying Pig]

"[T]he institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth. [...] Knowing what we know today about life on the African continent, would an existence spent in slavery have been any crueler than a life spent in sub-Saharan Africa?"

-Arkansas State Rep. Jon Hubbard (R)

So, it's certainly a position that some on the right choose to take.

It's frequently noted that, for at least some slaves, having a wealthy person with a significant financial interest in your health and - up to a point - well-being was preferable to working in similarly awful conditions on a similarly menial job and having to fend for yourself. Slaves are expensive, after all.

Women were not "spared" only voting and other privileges. They were also spared dying by the millions in wars they didn't understand, being left to drown in shipwrecks, taking the worst of the worst jobs (yes, they also did horrible jobs, but look at accident and mortality rates in the workplaces and see that males were and still are far more likely to suffer grave injuries or die).

That is still oppression. You can't just remove the right to choose whether you want to be liable for military call-up or live almost your entire life in a basement (as was entirely normal for a woman in classical Athens) and justify it because the latter is, according to your subjective judgement, more comfortable. Even Euripides had Medea complain that she would rather fight in three battles than have to give birth once.

 

[Evie]

And I still want to know where teh notion that women were spared the horrors of war come from. That they suffered a little later during the "pillage and rape" phase instead of the actual battle doesn't make all that much difference. You could even make the case that hey, at least the men got a chance to fight and save themselves.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So unless women had it "worse" in literally every possible aspect, there was no oppression? Isn't a situation where men hold a monopoly on all positions of control and leadership, where only men can vote, hold land, etc... how the hell is that not oppressive?

Statements like this seem to wilfully ignore the fact that the vast majority of men are not, and never have been, in positions of power or in a position to own land, or even eligible to vote themselves until not all that long before women were. There's always been a tiny minority at the top of the pile holding all the cards, but they make up such a small fraction of society as a whole that it's not really of any consequence what their individual members are, be they men, women or baboons.

 

[Zack]

Statements like this seem to wilfully ignore the fact that the vast majority of men are not, and never have been, in positions of power or in a position to own land, or even eligible to vote themselves until not all that long before women were. There's always been a tiny minority at the top of the pile holding all the cards, but they make up such a small fraction of society as a whole that it's not really of any consequence what their individual members are, be they men, women or baboons.

well only a few people had slaves so it wasn't really that bad right

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't see the parallel there.

 

[Narz]

You are supposed to be the one reading all the books and you link us this crap? Disappointing to say the least. And yes there are extreme and even as the story suggests nasty feminists but they really are the exception.

The point is that women should have the right to choose, including choosing more "traditional" gender roles.

And also admitting she "needs" a man should not be considered shameful. I need women, I love women, without a good woman my life is much worse.

The idea that no one should need anyone & anyone can be anything is ridiculous. Most people crave tendership & companionship (along with sex) from the gender they are attracted to. Women tend to crave security more than men & men tend to crave someone to ground them & nurture them. At least that's my experience.

It wasn't the best story I admit but there is some truth to the hostile sterotype about feminists which is why most women are reluctant to call themselves that.

 

[Flying Pig]

It wasn't the best story I admit but there is some truth to the hostile sterotype about feminists which is why most women are reluctant to call themselves that.

The problem with stereotypes is that you can always find a few members of any group that fit whatever stereotype you choose, especially bearing in mind that we naturally remember and mentally exaggerate evidence which fits our pre-existing expectations and naturally forget or play down that which challenges them.

 

[luiz]

"[T]he institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth. [...] Knowing what we know today about life on the African continent, would an existence spent in slavery have been any crueler than a life spent in sub-Saharan Africa?"

-Arkansas State Rep. Jon Hubbard (R)

So, it's certainly a position that some on the right choose to take.

And some in the left have the position that blacks are simply inferior:

The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.

And unlike some obscure State Rep. from Arkansas, this dude became an icon and idol for millions of left-wingers worldwide, and also a best-selling t-shirt logo.

So... I'm sure you had a point?

So unless women had it "worse" in literally every possible aspect, there was no oppression? Isn't a situation where men hold a monopoly on all positions of control and leadership, where only men can vote, hold land, etc... how the hell is that not oppressive?

Who said there was no oppression?

And again, your statement is not historically sound. Through most of human history, the vast majority of both men and women had no political power. Women of high birth had far more power than a male peasant. Universal suffrage is a very recent thing, and historically speaking men and women got it not that far apart. I'll expand on my reply to Oda below.

That is still oppression. You can't just remove the right to choose whether you want to be liable for military call-up or live almost your entire life in a basement (as was entirely normal for a woman in classical Athens) and justify it because the latter is, according to your subjective judgement, more comfortable. Even Euripides had Medea complain that she would rather fight in three battles than have to give birth once.

Nobody said it wasn't oppression. But than again, back in Euripides' day, most men were oppressed as well.

And I still want to know where teh notion that women were spared the horrors of war come from. That they suffered a little later during the "pillage and rape" phase instead of the actual battle doesn't make all that much difference. You could even make the case that hey, at least the men got a chance to fight and save themselves.

You can't conflate different historical periods to make a point. I think in relation to male-female human power relations in the West we could very broadly speak of 3 "phases"

-"The Old Days", or the overwhelming majority of human history (let's say since the dawn of civilization to around 1800, and of course I'm grossly simplifying and generalizing here). Most men and women had no political power whatsoever, slavery or serfdom were common, and all meaningful power was at the hands of a small elite composed mostly but not exclusively of men. There were queens and empresses after all. While men would die in wars, women would frequently suffer just as much in the aftermath (I suppose in Europe this begun to change before 1800 with the advent of professional armies).

-"The Transition Period", or very very roughly from around 1800 to around 1920. Men slowly and gradually got voting rights, proper legal protection, etc. Power gradually spread out from a tiny elite to more people. Arguably this was the period when the difference in rights between the "common man" and the "common woman" was the greatest, because men were becoming free while women were not (or rather not in the same pace). OTOH, fighting was done almost exclusively by men and women were mostly spared the horrors of war. If I had to guess I'd say this period was also when women's life expectancy begun to significantly exceed that of men (I'm pretty certain that's the case).

-The "Modern Period", or very very roughly from 1920 to the present. Women get voting and other rights; legal discrimination decreases to the point of being extinguished (in the 1960's or 70's in most Western countries, I'd say). Discrimination against women in the workplace and elsewhere persists but is always diminishing. Men continue to be more likely victimized by violence, be it in wars or criminality.

My point here is that you can't really tell the history of "gender relations" as one of master and slave, oppressor and oppressed. There was oppression, yes. Women were denied rights for most of history, but so were men. And women indeed got a lot of rights after men. But the whole picture is much more complex and not at all analogous to slavery.

 

[Arwon]

These threads always say so much more about many of the participants than the ostensible subject.