[RD] Feminism

[Timsup2nothin]

The Romans literally crucified people they didn't like. Do you really think that they crucified women close to as many men as they crucified?

Their is no shortage of wars in Roman history, is there? Did the Romans target the women in those wars, or did they target the men? Who suffered wounds on the battlefields? Who died or got seriously crippled because they were working with iron? Did the women work the iron mines? Who died or got seriously injured when they built their aqueducts? When the Romans wanted slaves did they mostly want women slaves, or male slaves to ease the burden of heavy manual labor?

I completely disagree with your claim. The more you take into account in your equation, compared to women, the worse off men show up to be and the better off women show up to be, comparatively speaking.

Kill all the men, rape the women, take them and the kids as slaves...that was pretty common practice in all ancient wars. Now, once again you may take up the 'better raped than killed' banner and run it as far as you please.

 

[Hygro]

The Romans literally crucified people they didn't like. Do you really think that they crucified women close to as many men as they crucified?

Their is no shortage of wars in Roman history, is there? Did the Romans target the women in those wars, or did they target the men? Who suffered wounds on the battlefields? Who died or got seriously crippled because they were working with iron? Did the women work the iron mines? Who died or got seriously injured when they built their aqueducts? When the Romans wanted slaves did they mostly want women slaves, or male slaves to ease the burden of heavy manual labor?

I completely disagree with your claim. The more you take into account in your equation, compared to women, the worse off men show up to be and the better off women show up to be, comparatively speaking.

In the Three Kingdoms portrayal of the Warring States period, when a royal house would usurp another royal house, they would annihilate everyone. Are you arguing that the royals were oppressed and the peasants in this case less so because they, the rulers and aristocrats, were the most complete targets of the violence?

 

[Ajidica]

Power and land which they shared with their female partners, who didn't have to risk their lives at all.

Yeahno.
In ancient Rome, to participate in civil society, it was expected that one embodied the 'Roman Virtues' of temperance and control over emotions. It was a societal rule -if not an actual law*- that women were considered incapable of controlling their emotions and thus it was not proper they participate in civil society. In terms of civic participation, they were lumped in with children, the insane, and barbarians.
*To clarify, it was a law in the Republic and early Empire that women were subordinate to the patria potestes of the man. Even though the law had sort of lapsed by the late Empire, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it was not rigorously enforced through social custom.

However, even Barbarians were considered to be capable of expressing "Roman virtues" by virtue of being male and thus, in the Roman view, inherently more able to control their emotions. While a barbarian could be turned into a Roman through education, a woman could never be a True Roman and possess patria potestes.
(Source: Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West: 376-568, pgs 96-99)

Kill all the men, rape the women, take them and the kids as slaves...that was pretty common practice in all ancient wars. Now, once again you may take up the 'better raped than killed' banner and run it as far as you please.

Hear the lamentation of their women.

 

[caketastydelish]

By the way, what is wrong there is that men are weak. This is just anecdotal observation, but in circumstances where men will kill themselves most women will just tough it out.

This is basically what I mean by I hate male feminists and only respect the female ones. That the male feminists are the man haters, and the female feminists have empathy.

By insulting suicide victims everywhere, just as murder victims have also been insulted. How would it look if I started insulting rape victims? But oh yeah - they're the only ones that matter.

 

[Lexicus]

Also, wasn't it the case in Roman society that most men lacked political power too?

You're just describing oppression via more than one axis. Men without political power in ancient Rome were oppressed because they were poor, not because they were men.

This is basically what I mean by I hate male feminists and only respect the female ones. That the male feminists are the man haters, and the female feminists have empathy.

By insulting suicide victims everywhere, just as murder victims have also been insulted. How would it look if I started insulting rape victims? But oh yeah - they're the only ones that matter.

I must say, Tim makes a most unlikely man-hater to me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is basically what I mean by I hate male feminists and only respect the female ones. That the male feminists are the man haters, and the female feminists have empathy.

Personally, I am a gender equitable idiot hater.

 

[Hygro]

This is basically what I mean by I hate male feminists and only respect the female ones. That the male feminists are the man haters, and the female feminists have empathy.

If we averaged out all your extreme black and white positions over time, it would look reasonable.

 

[civver_764]

You're just describing oppression via more than one axis. Men without political power in ancient Rome were oppressed because they were poor, not because they were men.

I'm just saying, you're essentially arguing for the rights of a few elite women.

I must say, Tim makes a most unlikely man-hater to me.

Coming from the guy who said "men as a whole are abusers". I don't think there could be a less qualified member of this forum to make that determination. You guys are two of a kind.

Yeah, I can. But I can also put my feelings aside and argue about things on a purely rational level, which you seem to not be capable of, at least on this specific subject.

...

Maybe you're a terrible person for talking to people and prolonging their suffering instead of assisting them in their suicide.

You have a way with words my friend.

 

[Spoonwood]

In the Three Kingdoms portrayal of the Warring States period, when a royal house would usurp another royal house, they would annihilate everyone. Are you arguing that the royals were oppressed and the peasants in this case less so because they, the rulers and aristocrats, were the most complete targets of the violence?

The Three Kingdoms period, according to Wikipedia, refers to Chinese history, not Roman history as I had referenced. It also doesn't affect my point at all, because if everyone gets killed, well both men and women suffer to the same extent.

And you ask some sort of leading question like that with implicit assumptions and no connection whatsoever to what preceded it like that? I mean I could turn this around on you... something like this:

Are you arguing that the men who built the aqueducts and got injured or died were kings? That the women who could hold their own babies were oppressed by the holding of the baby? That the men of the legions who got slaughtered in battle were royalty and had the good fortune of the rich?

Just as you may have not made any such assumptions necessary to make sense of the above questions, I simply did not make any sort of assumptions necessary to make sense of your question. So, the answer to your question is no, simply because I don't agree with the metaphor you made there.

 

[Ajidica]

not Roman history as I had referenced

You talking about period of Roman history when women weren't really people, or the period when they were considered equivalent to children?

 

[civver_764]

You talking about period of Roman history when women weren't really people, or the period when they were considered equivalent to children?

I think he's talking about the one where men were treated as disposable manual labor objects.

 

[Spoonwood]

You talking about period of Roman history when women weren't really people, or the period when they were considered equivalent to children?

With respect to "who has it worse, men or women" legal rights are not the only consideration. So, yes, absolutely.

With respect to "who has privileged status in a society", then legal rights make for the primary and most important consideration.

You've referred to the "patria potestas" in Roman society. Now, that didn't exist absolutely, because the law simply couldn't determine who was the father in all cases and some people got around that whomever was responsible for such children. You do NOT have the power of a father over children if they are not his offspring, because fatherhood is biological. The *role* of fathers and *expectations* of fathers is not biological, but fatherhood I maintain is biological. What did exist more accurately might get called male guardian preference.

Now with that in mind, the divorce rate and the rather high percentage of single mothers with children in say the United States, and I think Great Britain also, and perhaps other countries, we have something of female guardian preference, unless court fairness somehow results in a rather large imbalance of female guardians over male guardians. That doesn't make today's female guardian culture equivalent to the Roman one, but if you acknowledge the reality of the Roman one, due to the reality of men raising children when they are not the father, it seems sensible to acknowledge the reality of the female guardian culture of today's world.

And I simply don't see how female guardian preference culture makes for any sort of consistency with the notion of some sort of patriarchy. There simply cannot be any sort of patriarchy when there is no man around, even before we consider whether or not the male guardian of children is the father.

Or one might say that if you want to say that a "patriarchy" existed in Roman society, because of the preference for male guardians, then it seems consistent to talk about a "matriarchy" in today's society, and "patriarchy" in today's society makes for the exception, not the rule upon divorce.

 

[Ajidica]

I think he's talking about the one where men were treated as disposable manual labor objects.

Considering women weren't really people in Roman society and the Ripuarian Law basically defined women as baby-making machines with legs, I'll take "aristocrats treat everyone beneath them like disposable objects" over "not really people".
Unless you were a patrician, Roman society was pretty terrible for anyone. That women weren't really people was just vomit icing on the cake made of feces.
In the post-Roman Gothic and Frankish kingdoms, "ethnicity"* was traced through the father, not the mother. Since being able to claim Gothic/Frankish "ethnicity" was the definition of "personhood" and carried with it a whole host of legal and social benefits, I think it is pretty uncontroversial that ancient society awarded a higher social standing to men.
*It is late and I don't want to have to get into what ethnicity means in late-Roman Europe.

You've referred to the "patria potestas" in Roman society. Now, that didn't exist absolutely, because the law simply couldn't determine who was the father in all cases and some people got around that whomever was responsible for such children. You do NOT have the power of a father over children if they are not his offspring, because fatherhood is biological. The *role* of fathers and *expectations* of fathers is not biological, but fatherhood I maintain is biological. What did exist more accurately might get called male guardian preference.

I was under the impression we were talking about Roman society, but either way "fatherhood" in a Roman context was definitely not biological. Caesarion is a historical footnote and Octavian founded the Roman Empire.
Either way, patria potestas was how Romans envisioned the family -a microcosm of society- worked. The man/father, endowed with superior reason and intellect, was to lead the family/society. Women, endowed with lesser reason and intellect, were suited for roles the man was unsuited for. If a woman were to try and take on a "manly" role, it was sacrilegious in the Roman idea of the state and society. We have voluminous records of patricians complaining how the regency of Galla Placidia was threatening the very foundation of Roman society. Multiple other records -notably the revolt of the Iceni and accounts of the Sauromatians- emphasize female leadership there with the clear implication that "barbarians" can get female leaders because barbarians and women were alike in that they were irrational and unable to control emotions.

 

[civver_764]

Considering women weren't really people in Roman society and the Ripuarian Law basically defined women as baby-making machines with legs, I'll take "aristocrats treat everyone beneath them like disposable objects" over "not really people".
Unless you were a patrician, Roman society was pretty terrible for anyone. That women weren't really people was just vomit icing on the cake made of feces.

You're completely ignoring that men were seen as a disposable to a much greater extent than women, who were by and large protected from danger by men. What does your "not really people" schtick even mean? Considering men were more readily killed and put in danger, it seems like they were the ones thought of as less human.

 

[Ajidica]

You're completely ignoring that men were seen as a disposable to a much greater extent than women,

If such a claim is obvious, surely you can find quotes from contemporary Roman writers supporting that. Roman patricians were big fans of writing salty letters to each other.
who were by and large protected from danger by men.[/quote]

What does your "not really people" schtick even mean?

A lack of equivalent legal and social standing for one. I wasn't aware I would have to explain disenfranchisement to an anarchist, even a former one.
(In case I'm being too clever for my own good, serfs weren't really people in Medieval Europe. Or as Brian Blessed put it in Blackadder: "Peasants only count in case of a tie.")

 

[civver_764]

If such a claim is obvious, surely you can find quotes from contemporary Roman writers supporting that. Roman patricians were big fans of writing salty letters to each other.

Spoonwood already addressed this exact point on the previous page. I've got nothing to add.

A lack of equivalent legal and social standing for one. I wasn't aware I would have to explain disenfranchisement to an anarchist, even a former one.

As has been stated, there is much more to the equation than legal rights.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've got nothing to add.

Usually at that point you just repeat the same already disproved assertions. Are you finally tiring?

 

[sophie]

Power and land which they shared with their female partners, who didn't have to risk their lives at all.

Who is the more privileged one -- the man who gives up his life at war or the woman who can't vote?

Women in Classical Rome didn't even get their own names, dude. Not exactly the best example to be citing.

 

[Hygro]

The Three Kingdoms period, according to Wikipedia, refers to Chinese history, not Roman history as I had referenced. It also doesn't affect my point at all, because if everyone gets killed, well both men and women suffer to the same extent.

And you ask some sort of leading question like that with implicit assumptions and no connection whatsoever to what preceded it like that? I mean I could turn this around on you... something like this:

Are you arguing that the men who built the aqueducts and got injured or died were kings? That the women who could hold their own babies were oppressed by the holding of the baby? That the men of the legions who got slaughtered in battle were royalty and had the good fortune of the rich?

Just as you may have not made any such assumptions necessary to make sense of the above questions, I simply did not make any sort of assumptions necessary to make sense of your question. So, the answer to your question is no, simply because I don't agree with the metaphor you made there.

You are arguing that men are an oppressed group because they bear heavy burdens of losing in war. I'm asking if you think a ruling families in China were an oppressed group because they bore the fiercest burdens of losing war.

 

[caketastydelish]

You are arguing that men are an oppressed group because they bear heavy burdens of losing in war. I'm asking if you think a ruling families in China were an oppressed group because they bore the fiercest burdens of losing war.

I see what you mean but that's not a great comparison. The ruling families (whether in China or anywhere else) are typically NOT the footsoldiers in a country that have to do the fighting/dying/dirty work.