The Rights of Men

[Ryika]

Lol if you think women were somehow excluded from the ravages of war just because they largely weren't allowed on the battlefield. Some safety.

Absurd.

As long as your men had not already been slaughtered on the battlefield or when the army was not fit to keep opposing armies from pillaging your lands? Yes, women were mostly safe from war.

Obviously that safety only exists if you're winning and don't have an opposing army ravage your lands and rape your women.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And who decided they couldn't go on the battlefield? Let's take a minute and think about it...

Men.

It's hard to know how to even engage with this level of simplistic binary thought.

 

[Senethro]

As long as your men had not already been slaughtered on the battlefield or when the army was not fit to keep opposing armies from pillaging your lands? Yes, women were mostly safe from war.

So, to recap, EVERYONE was safe from war, except all the times that war was happening.

Got it.

 

[Ryika]

So, to recap, EVERYONE was safe from war, except all the times that war was happening.

Got it.

See, twisting my words and saying stupid things does not make you right.

The goal of keeping women at home was to keep them safe from war, that's how it has been since the very beginning of human societies. The fact that an army can die and then leaves women defenseless does not change anything about that - yes, if you lose, then everybody loses, including women who would get raped and children who would most likely become slaves or just be killed.

If you win, your women are safe.

 

[Senethro]

It's hard to know how to even engage with this level of simplistic binary thought.

How do you look at that situation and think to yourself "That is a just state of affairs"?

Because the issue I take is you seem to make the claim that everyone was equally oppressed at each and every point in history.

 

[Senethro]

See, twisting my words and saying stupid things does not make you right.

The goal of keeping women at home was to keep them safe from war, that's how it has been since the very beginning of human societies. The fact that an army can die and then leaves women defenseless does not change anything about that - yes, if you lose, then everybody loses.

If you win, your women are safe.

Did the women themselves have opinions on their "safety"? Or their strict gender roles?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So, to recap, EVERYONE was safe from war, except all the times that war was happening.

Got it.

Can you at least attempt to try an adhere to some vague level of RD discussion standards? Only someone who doesn't understand English could actually think that was what he said.

 

[useless]

It's hard to know how to even engage with this level of simplistic binary thought.

Here's a hint; alot of armies, headed often by males, decided that women shouldn't join, it's only recently that women could join national armies.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

How do you look at that situation and think to yourself "That is a just state of affairs"?

Because the issue I take is you seem to make the claim that everyone was equally oppressed at each and every point in history.

Again, incredibly simple thinking. Why on earth would I be saying every single person was treated exactly equally at all points in history? That's an absurd claim to make and it's absurd that you think I had made it, or ever would. I'm not of the habit of lumping whole demographics into one homogenous category, unlike the very comment I was replying to just t hen.

 

[Ryika]

Did the women themselves have opinions on their "safety"? Or their strict gender roles?

Did the men themselves have opinions on being the ones defending their women or were it just their strict gender roles?

Things were what they were because they had to be how they were. If men had not fought on the battlefield, their societies would just have been overrun by their neighbors. If women had been fighting on the battlefield in high numbers, then there would have been no next generation to defend the lands.

THANKFULLY these times are over, but that does not change the fact that everyone did what they had to do. "But was it their choice?" is just not a sensible question, by that logic everybody was oppressed by the fact that times were harsh.

 

[Senethro]

Can you at least attempt to try an adhere to some vague level of RD discussion standards? Only someone who doesn't understand English could actually think that was what he said.

What he said was that everyone in history was oppressed. But that men had greater freedom in society, while women had greater safety.

Which isn't so very true really.

 

[Senethro]

Rykia,

The problem is that a lot of people don't buy into the belief that women are somehow downtrodden wholescale by men.

This statement here is the problem. Can I just get an absolute affirmation that this is what you subscribe to?

And then you somehow seem to have gone down the path of saying women weren't downtrodden by men in history, everyone was just shaped by environmental factors (biological, social, cultural) beyond everyones control.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And who decided they couldn't go on the battlefield? Let's take a minute and think about it...

Men.

Okay since you insist I actually do engage with it:

First problem - using "men" as a homogenous group, as if all men jointly take part in the decision making process, that they all speak with a united voice, or at the very least that they all take an equal share of the blame/responsibility for any decisions other men make simply for the fact that they share similar junk. As you well know, the vast majority of the men who went to fight on the battlefield had no more choice in the matter than any of the women who didn't.

Second problem - assuming all women were entirely passive and had zero input into any decision making processes ever. I think it's reasonable to assume that many women (if not the majority) would have been just as much behind this state of affairs as anyone else and encouraged it. See the aforementioned White Feather movement for a relatively recent example.

Third problem - the idea that forcing people to stay away from the battlefield in an attempt to protect them is somehow oppression. And also worse than forcing other people ONTO the battlefield and into much more immediate danger.

Fourth problem - completely ignoring all the biological and logical reasons why females are more valuable to the continuance of a society and instead labelling this all as some completely arbitrary decision made by "men".

Fifth problem - kind of a tangential one this, but the fact that again we're debating what used to happen a long time ago... not really relevant to anything now.

 

[Senethro]

Okay since you insist I actually do engage with it:

First problem - using "men" as a homogenous group, as if all men jointly take part in the decision making process, that they all speak with a united voice, or at the very least that they all take an equal share of the blame/responsibility for any decisions other men make simply for the fact that they share similar junk. As you well know, the vast majority of the men who went to fight on the battlefield had no more choice in the matter than any of the women who didn't.

That really depends on the society in question. Kind of depends how many social classes between warfighter and war-declarer there are really. Tribal warrior to Chief might be flatter than Peasant to King, or even Citizen to Elected Executive. Also, the use of citizen soldiers vs. levies/conscripts. Very variable.

Second problem - assuming all women were entirely passive and had zero input into any decision making processes ever. I think it's reasonable to assume that many women (if not the majority) would have been just as much behind this state of affairs as anyone else and encouraged it. See the aforementioned White Feather movement for a relatively recent example.

Big assumption. Huge assumption. Actually think about the size of this assumption please.

Also why is it a problem in your view? I mean I'm sure they were happy that they didn't have to go to war, but so would slaves in a society where slaves did not fight in wars.

Third problem - the idea that forcing people to stay away from the battlefield in an attempt to protect them is somehow oppression. And also worse than forcing other people ONTO the battlefield and into much more immediate danger.

Not quite what useless is saying. The protection is just what comes with being a non-citizen. Less than a serf. Its a whole big package of societal effects with some dubious "protection" being one of them.

Fourth problem - completely ignoring all the biological and logical reasons why females are more valuable to the continuance of a society and instead labelling this all as some completely arbitrary decision made by "men".

There is an element of our views only being informed by those societies that survived, but I see no reason to say that this makes any state of affairs just.

Fifth problem - kind of a tangential one this, but the fact that again we're debating what used to happen a long time ago... not really relevant to anything now.

Because our socities now evolved out of those then and retain characteristics.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What he said was that everyone in history was oppressed. But that men had greater freedom in society, while women had greater safety.

Which isn't so very true really.

Well it is quite true really, but that's an aside.

My point was that your "summary" of what he said was actually completely different to what he actually said.

His point: Women on the losing side are vulnerable to reprisals due to them being on the losing side. Women on the winning side, IF kept away from the battlefields and their men manage to rout the oppostion, are in a much better and relatively good position.

Your summary: All people are safe from war. Apart from when there's a war happening.

I mean, do you not see how not only is your "summary" a complete twisting of his words, but also his words that you were replying to aren't even what you just said they were in THIS post.

 

[Ryika]

Rykia,

This statement here is the problem. Can I just get an absolute affirmation that this is what you subscribe to?

And then you somehow seem to have gone down the path of saying women weren't downtrodden by men in history, everyone was just shaped by environmental factors (biological, social, cultural) beyond everyones control.

What's "the problem" with that statement? Of course women are not "downtrodden wholescale by men". That's just a silly thing to even think about in times where women can do any job they want, make up the biggest portion of people who go to college and get tons of media attention.

Do women as a gender have problems? Yes, they have. One of them is not being seen as being as capable and yes, that may very well because people are still programmed to think by "old standards" instead of understanding that these days everyone is (in theory) free enough to fulfill their potential.

Do men as a gender have problems? Well, yes, they also have. As I wrote earlier in this thread: By far the highest rates of being homeless, having to live on welfare, committing suicide and earlier (non-suicide) death on average.

None of that has anything to do with the past where, by necessity, men and women both had to fill their roles. Yes, "the deciders" in society at large and in families were men, but that just doesn't mean much. As a man it was you who had to make sure your family lived - would you want to be the person making decisions that could mean the DEATH of everyone you love? That is the "privilege" you're talking about, reality is still very simple: If your main focus is on the very survival of your people, privilege and oppression are nonsensical concepts. The decisions men made were not "Hey, do I want to have this outcome or that outcome?", the decisions they made were: "Which one of these will keep us alive?" There was no freedom for most people in history, no matter what your gender was.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That really depends on the society in question. Kind of depends how many social classes between warfighter and war-declarer there are really. Tribal warrior to Chief might be flatter than Peasant to King, or even Citizen to Elected Executive. Also, the use of citizen soldiers vs. levies/conscripts. Very variable.

Disagree. Whatever society you choose there is always a hierarchy and those at the bottom always vastly outnumber those at the tope. Therefore saying "men" decided anything, and laying the culpability evenly at the feet of an entire gender, is always going to be wrong.

Big assumption. Huge assumption. Actually think about the size of this assumption please.

Also why is it a problem in your view? I mean I'm sure they were happy that they didn't have to go to war, but so would slaves in a society where slaves did not fight in wars.

Relatively minor assumption. The aforementioned (again) white feather movement being a perfectly good example. For someone who apparently has the utmost faith in the complete equality of women, I find it amazing that you have no problem with seeing them as cowed, mindless drones throughout most of recorded history. The assumption that zero women ever had any say in anything or played no active role in shaping society IS a huge assumption.

Not sure what your second question even means as you seem to have misunderstood something I said. The only thing I said was a problem in that paragraph was the assumption that women were passive drones.

Not quite what useless is saying. The protection is just what comes with being a non-citizen. Less than a serf. Its a whole big package of societal effects with some dubious "protection" being one of them.

Well at least you're finally accepting that some nuance exists at least.

There is an element of our views only being informed by those societies that survived, but I see no reason to say that this makes any state of affairs just.

I said nothing about anything being just or unjust, I merely pointed out that completely ignoring massively influential factors when trying to work out why certain things happened the way they did is a bad thing to do. Especially when it leads you to poor conclusions such as the idea that keeping women away from fighting was an arbitrary and oppressive decision made by "men".

Because our socities now evolved out of those then and retain characteristics.

Given that we're supposed to be talking about problems that exist now, and potentially how to address them directly, then a historical analysis of how these problems came about is of tangential importance at best. And since we can't even agree on any of it I was say it is a pretty pointless discussion in practice.

 

[Senethro]

What's "the problem" with that statement? Of course women are not "downtrodden wholescale by men". That's just a silly thing to even think about in times where women can do any job they want, make up the biggest portion of people who go to college and get tons of media attention.

Do women as a gender have problems? Yes, they have. One of them is not being seen as being as capable and yes, that may very well because people are still programmed to think by "old standards" instead of understanding that these days everyone is (in theory) free enough to fulfill their potential.

One question I've oft asked but rarely receive a reply to is that if this is true (and the most surprising people assert that it is) then how to explain gender disparity in the top level of... ummm... anything really. Lets limit it to politics, business/management, sciences.

Noone need answer this now, I'm sure a more relevant time to discuss it will come later.

Do men as a gender have problems? Well, yes, they also have. As I wrote earlier in this thread: By far the highest rates of being homeless, having to live on welfare, committing suicide and earlier (non-suicide) death on average.

None of that has anything to do with the past where, by necessity, men and women both had to fill their roles.

The past is always relevant, we weren't created only last Thursday. And people have always acted beyond or around necessity.

Yes, "the deciders" in society at large and in families were men, but that just doesn't mean much. As a man it was you who had to make sure your family lived - would you want to be the person making decisions that could mean the DEATH of everyone you love? That is the "privilege" you're talking about, reality is still very simple: If your main focus is on the very survival of your people, privilege and oppression are nonsensical concepts. The decisions men made were not "Hey, do I want to have this outcome or that outcome?", the decisions they made were: "Which one of these will keep us alive?" There was no freedom for most people in history, no matter what your gender was.

Heavy is the crown, all that burden of decisions sure gets you down.

This is just obviously silly. I'd rather be a person than a possession. Any threat of death hung over everyone, but some classes of people got no say in it. You can't be oppressed by this privilege.

 

[Senethro]

Disagree. Whatever society you choose there is always a hierarchy and those at the bottom always vastly outnumber those at the tope. Therefore saying "men" decided anything, and laying the culpability evenly at the feet of an entire gender, is always going to be wrong.

Chiefs look a bit silly if they turn up alone. The other tribe had better participation and tell him: "You and whose army?"

Many hierarchies in many societies were weak. Again, society dependent. So clearly some men want to war.

Relatively minor assumption. The aforementioned (again) white feather movement being a perfectly good example.

So now you're generalising the attitudes of some jingoistic old biddies across all of history? Its a really big assumption you're making.

For someone who apparently has the utmost faith in the complete equality of women, I find it amazing that you have no problem with seeing them as cowed, mindless drones throughout most of recorded history. The assumption that zero women ever had any say in anything or played no active role in shaping society IS a huge assumption.

Thank you. I do have complete faith in the equality of women. When recorded history shows a low participation (and often unfairly portrayed as absent) in the shaping of that history, I smell a rat. When men of the present tell me it was all ok and noones fault and that women were supportive of it in some ways, we're all equal now, I smell another.

I said nothing about anything being just or unjust, I merely pointed out that completely ignoring massively influential factors when trying to work out why certain things happened the way they did is a bad thing to do. Especially when it leads you to poor conclusions such as the idea that keeping women away from fighting was an arbitrary and oppressive decision made by "men".

Well it was! If women aren't allowed to own property but men are, then women can't own a shield, spear and helm. And the funny thing about warrior classes is that they often make the rules about who gets to be a warrior. And rules about everything else too.

Given that we're supposed to be talking about problems that exist now, and potentially how to address them directly, then a historical analysis of how these problems came about is of tangential importance at best.

Lolling. Just lolling. Not mature, but what can one do?

Is there some kind of RD rule against being very very wrong?

And since we can't even agree on any of it I was say it is a pretty pointless discussion in practice.

It keeps coming up and I'm always amazed at the denial of systematic oppression of women in our immediate predecessor societies.

It is pointless but your'e claiming red is blue.

 

[Ryika]

One question I've oft asked but rarely receive a reply to is that if this is true (and the most surprising people assert that it is) then how to explain gender disparity in the top level of... ummm... anything really. Lets limit it to politics, business/management, sciences.

Noone need answer this now, I'm sure a more relevant time to discuss it will come later.

Some of the factors that are responsible for that without going into too much explaining:

- Women are, on average, less interested in these fields (we even see that even at College education, where women already prefer social fields over STEM-fields)
- Women do, on average, not care that much about having a career, therefore jobs that require big investments of time, energy and often money (politics, business, management, science...) play a lesser role in their decisions.
- Especially when it comes to politics, most voters - that includes female voters - will prefer a male representative over a female one, which goes back to the women's problem that I mentioned above - not being seen as as capable as men.

The past is always relevant, we weren't created only last Thursday. And people have always acted beyond or around necessity.

And yet "Women were oppressed in history!" is not an argument against equally discussing and working to fix the problems of both genders. Even if every single women had been pure property held in a cage and every single man had been an individual spanking and abusing the women in these cages until things suddenly changed 100 years ago it would not mean that women today require more support for problems that are not any more severe than the problems of men today.

Problems need to be tackled by the effects they have on people living today and people that will live in the future.

Heavy is the crown, all that burden of decisions sure gets you down.
This is just obviously silly. I'd rather be a person than a possession. Any threat of death hung over everyone, but some classes of people got no say in it. You can't be oppressed by this privilege.

I personally agree, but that's an easy thing to say in times where it's basically an empty statement. I mean even in today's society pressure to perform is something that makes many people become ill, I don't think anyone of us can really understand how damaging it must be to understand that if you do a bad job everybody dies.

But either way, this is still very far away from that "women were oppressed during all of history!" that gets thrown around casually. Again, only very few people had actual freedoms as we know them today, most lived by necessity and the days of both genders were filled with activities that were a necessity to keep the family alive and well.