Feminism

[Senethro]

No indeed, but the immediate contention was who died more, in strictest terms, and he sourced his claims.

The contention is rubbish. Asking who has died more in battles in societies where women were restricted to being mothers, servants and prostitutes is a loaded question.

 

[luiz]

@luiz: Fair enough, I'll concede the point, at least so far as the direct consequences of warfare is concerned. But the larger point - that women are spared of many dire horrors due to their perception as the "gentler" sex, and this constitutes a positive externalization of their social and political marginalization - ignores some rather important context in, for example, female infanticide in China, or sexual slavery (and on that latter point, I might as well lump in the wartime rapes that have occurred... all through history, really).

That having been said, death and dying in war is pretty bad, and I shouldn't dare to pretend that the death of young men in war is not a tragedy and, quite frankly, a bad problem. But the solution to recognizing that both men and women face problems is not to throw up the hands and say "there's no aid for it! such is life," but to oppose all injustice.

So when feminists say they'd like women to have more political representation, better access to healthcare, and maybe be raped a little less, I don't think it qualifies as an ethically correct position to respond with "well, men die more often in war." Well, so what? What has that got to do with women not being allowed to vote - or, more recently, having disproportionately small representation in governments and institutions?

The other problem is the apparent disregard for feminism on the ground that male rights interests are somehow at cross-purposes with female rights. But if you want me to say "men shouldn't die in war as much," I'd agree, as I hope you would also say "women shouldn't be raped as much."

That's a fair and thoughtful post.

But note that I never said there are no legitimate problems that were addressed by feminists, nor that there is no more grounds for improving (specially in some non-Western countries where women continue to face official discrimination and oppression).

What I take issue with is the oft-repeated claim that "men oppressed women", without proper qualifiers, or that "women were treated as slaves", and other arguments along those lines which just aren't historically sound. The emancipation of women was very much a part of the broader emancipation of mankind.

 

[Crezth]

@Senethro: Perhaps so, but I was still wrong.

 

[Senethro]

What I take issue with is the oft-repeated claim that "men oppressed women", without proper qualifiers, or that "women were treated as slaves", and other arguments along those lines which just aren't historically sound. The emancipation of women was very much a part of the broader emancipation of mankind.

Do you spend as much energy popping into every thread on race and reminding everyone that white people were oppressed too? And if not why not.

 

[luiz]

Do you spend as much energy popping into every thread on race and reminding everyone that white people were oppressed too? And if not why not.

If people make idiotic and ahistoric claims like "white people have always oppressed black people" or "Europeans hunted for slaves in Africa" and etc then yes I will.

And I may remind them that millions of Europeans were also enslaved by Africans...

Slavery also had a context, and the US experience is not the only one nor representative of all slavery everywhere.

 

[Senethro]

Your face is idiotic and ahistoric!

And look at this guy who agrees with me: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13045736&postcount=18

Absolutely. It's never a 100% thing. But medieval Europe was very much a place ruled by males, with women in a (mostly) subaltern position.

Now, unless you intend to explain how women were maintained in a subaltern position without additional oppression, would you stop popping up like the whack-a-mole to demand we insert "mostly" or "but not all men!" into our every statement? Because it looks like you already agree with the broad thrusts and are being unnecessarily pedantic.

 

[luiz]

Your face is idiotic and ahistoric!

And look at this guy who agrees with me: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13045736&postcount=18



Now, unless you intend to explain how women were maintained in a subaltern position without additional oppression, would you stop popping up like the whack-a-mole to demand we insert "mostly" or "but not all men!" into our every statement? Because it looks like you already agree with the broad thrusts and are being unnecessarily pedantic.

What I said there is a historical fact and not in contradiction to anything I said here. I've repeatedly stated that women in the past were virtually 100% absent from positions of power; I was merely making the point that so was the vast majority of men.

Likewise I would never deny that blacks were enslaved and oppressed in the US, but I would certainly take issue with statements such as "white people have always oppressed black people" or insinuations that slavery was always something whites did to blacks and so on and so forth.

 

[Zack]

So yes, you are just being unnecessarily pedantic.

 

[Perfection]

What I said there is a historical fact and not in contradiction to anything I said here. I've repeatedly stated that women in the past were virtually 100% absent from positions of power; I was merely making the point that so was the vast majority of men.

The problem isn't if you're right or wrong but if you're actually helping the discussion. I see this as insipid nitpicking that is dismissive and unsympathetic to the reality of historical female oppression.

The nitpick obscure/trivialized these facts:
1. Historically, power has been given almost exclusively to men
2. Historically women were both oppressed by men in power and men in general.

Anyways, I don't think you ever addressed the OP, perhaps it would be interesting for you to do so.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So when feminists say they'd like women to have more political representation, better access to healthcare...

What healthcare to women have inadequate access to? Are you talking third world or "the west" here?

 

[Perfection]

Mental healthcare, access to abortions, prenatal care.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Again, third world or the west? There's certainly no restriction on any of that where I'm from.

 

[Perfection]

Both. I'd say there's definitely issues with that in the US

 

[Farm Boy]

Primarily with transportation in poor rural areas, eh?

 

[Perfection]

Care quality, transportation, affordability, social barriers to seeking treatment, patient choice, etc.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, aside from the transportation, won't Obamacare be a game changer when it comes to access for affordability of basic medical care?

 

[Perfection]

Definitely, we'll see how that pans out in the next few years.

 

[BvBPL]

Feminist fireworks coming to NYC in ten days!

 

[Farm Boy]

So if making plates with vaginas on them, and possibly vagina shaped fireworks are expressions of feminism, social progress, and equal rights: I can haz activism in child custody rights, incarceration injustice, and a culture of failure in elementary schools by taking interesting objects and coating them with images of nice big <lame guys, male roosters is apparently a censored word, fix preeze>? Bar restrooms are a hotbed of social justice. Or is that just heteropatriarchy? So confused!

 

[BvBPL]

No, because the rooster has long been a normative part of art. No activism for you.

Also, why would you qualify rooster by stating its sex? Do you have a lot of female roosters on your farm?