Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Property is a concept born by advanced civilizations. I don't believe that ancient Roman women, for example, were a property, no matter how you define that word. Actually, ancient Roman women at the time of decline remind modern women quite a bit. There is something deeply similar. Emphasis on the pleasures, rampant divorces and promiscuity, refusal to bear (many) children, even struggle for equal rights in the public arena. The less society is civilized, the more equal women are, as much as that is physiologically possible. Hunters gatherers couldn't afford a female piece of property and had no use for it.
Then why is Sweden so much more civil than Muslim countries?
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,455,696 times
Reputation: 6670
There's lotsa kinds of ''feminism'', so it can get confusing. Some folks (''gender-based'' feminists) see it as a sort of revolutionary struggle and define it in political terms, like overthrowing the ''patriarchy'', etc.. Am personally not too keen on that one, as it seems counter-productive and basically amounts to a permanent war between the genders... and also produces much of the angry rhetoric the OP is talking about.
On the other hand, are the so-called ''equity'' feminists, who simply want what you'd want for everyone... equal pay, equal rights, etc.... and in that regard there are still plenty of opportunities for more ''freedom'' and ''equality'' in both genders!
BTW, as a man, this one kinda annoys me sometimes. For example from an early age, males routinely have to deal with the issue of being a "real man" (whatever the heck that still means). Yet when's the last time you ever heard a gal's basic ''womanhood'' ever called into question (regardless whether she's straight, gay, old, young, fat, skinny, beautiful, unattractive, whatever)?
There's lotsa kinds of ''feminism'', so it can get confusing. Some folks see it as a sort of revolutionary struggle and define it in political terms, like overthrowing the ''patriarchy'', etc.. Am personally not too keen on that one, as it seems counter-productive and basically amounts to a war between the genders... and also produces much of the angry rhetoric the OP is talking about.
On the other hand, are the so-called ''equity'' feminists, who simply want what you'd want for everyone... equal pay, equal rights, etc.... and in that regard there are still plenty of opportunities for more ''freedom'' and ''equality'' in both sexes!
BTW, as a man, this one kinda annoys me sometimes. For example males routinely have to deal with the issue of being a "real man" (whatever the heck that still means). Yet when's the last time you ever heard a female's basic ''womanhood'' called into question (regardless whether she's straight, gay, unattractive, whatever)?
Agreed. That's why I'm a supporter of civil rights and liberties, but not women's rights. If it's a right, it's a right; rich, poor, black, white, orange, man, woman, transsexual should all have the same rights and opportunities.
Americans Jews, Indians, and Arab/Middle Easterners still have arranged marriages and the women are not sold. The women have choices and can say no. Usually the way it works is, the parents pick someone based on character and values not sexual compatibility or attraction. Then the daughter and son meet, get together and get to know each other. Pretty sure I read that arranged marriages have a ridiculously low divorce rate, something like 5 or 10%.
Women are sold. It is called a bride price and it is still commonly practiced in the Arab Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. (not sure on the other 2, though the American Jewish women I know would never in a million years accept an arranged marriage). Furthermore in places like Saudi Arabia strict criminal punishments for dating and laws requiring that women have a male guardian make divorce and re-marriage difficult.
And no they don't particularly care about character they care about scratch. That is how this kind of stuff happens.
Your link refers to "200" studies, but fails to provide information of who or what organization did the so called studies, we're supposed to believe this? Because the article sounds like it's biased right from the git go.
There's lotsa kinds of ''feminism'', so it can get confusing. Some folks (''gender-based'' feminists) see it as a sort of revolutionary struggle and define it in political terms, like overthrowing the ''patriarchy'', etc.. Am personally not too keen on that one, as it seems counter-productive and basically amounts to a permanent war between the genders... and also produces much of the angry rhetoric the OP is talking about.
On the other hand, are the so-called ''equity'' feminists, who simply want what you'd want for everyone... equal pay, equal rights, etc.... and in that regard there are still plenty of opportunities for more ''freedom'' and ''equality'' in both genders!
BTW, as a man, this one kinda annoys me sometimes. For example from an early age, males routinely have to deal with the issue of being a "real man" (whatever the heck that still means). Yet when's the last time you ever heard a gal's basic ''womanhood'' ever called into question (regardless whether she's straight, gay, old, young, fat, skinny, beautiful, unattractive, whatever)?
I agree with much of what you say. I do take issue with some of the self-serving objectives of a seqment of the feminist movement. For one thing, despite the activism of the feminist movement, women who have made strides in moving into leadership positions in the corporate world have failed to use what influence they do have to make the workplace more equal and fair for everyone. Women are a protected class under discrimination laws, but I would guess that discrimination charges filed with the phony gov't agencies (such as the EEOC) have a very high percentage of respondents in which the alleged discriminators are actually female. Protected class on protected class crime -as I see it. I also stated in another thread that black females have been duped into thinking that this society sees them as women first, black second. ..And that has caused a lot of male/female discord and lack of solidarity in the black community. I am also very put off and annoyed by obsessive fixation on feminism -such as what I see on MSNBC's MHP show. Now here is a very intelligent, talented and refreshingly diverse voice on cable tv who cannot make it through a single broadcast without a feminist oriented segment.
However, to address the PO's assertion that women are not oppressed. That is just crazy talk. women have been and still are oppressed in many ways. The world is a complicated place and these topics are a lot more nuanced that people conceive of them.
And what I take issue with in your post is the notion that women are not constantly having their womanhood called into question. I don't think there is any conscious lack of sensitivity on your part, but this is just so massively wrong that I can't even begin to take that on. I will just leave that to someone else.
Wow such ignorance...no point in debating this when the op is clearly uneducated. If he knew his history and kept up with current events he wouldn't spew hatred and stupidity.
There's a problem right there - "hatred." Saying that women were not oppressed is simply an assertion about history. I happen to disagree with that assertion. But it certainly isn't "hatred." Women had a certain role they were expected to play in society and I think most rational people would agree that role had less freedom than men did. But if someone wants to disagree that their role constituted being oppressed, there is also no reason for a rational person to equate that to hatred.
What you've said is nothing but politically correct dogma - "You must accept that women were past victims and require special advantages today to equalize that or else you hate women"
Because I'm sure that's where the "hate" part comes in - the assumption that if someone says women weren't oppressed in the past then they simply must be doing it so they can send women back into the kitchen and take away their right to vote.
The truth is more like "If you don't agree that women were oppressed in the past then you have a weird way of defining oppression or else the facts of history don't bear out your claims"
See, there's no value judgment there. In no way did the orginal post demean women. He didn't say women should lose the right to vote, or work, or control their reproduction, or anything of the sort. There was no hatred there. Simply a skewed view of history.
Property is a concept born by advanced civilizations. I don't believe that ancient Roman women, for example, were a property, no matter how you define that word. Actually, ancient Roman women at the time of decline remind modern women quite a bit. There is something deeply similar. Emphasis on the pleasures, rampant divorces and promiscuity, refusal to bear (many) children, even struggle for equal rights in the public arena.
We have only to look at the animal kingdom to refute that you need some formal understanding of property ownership to actually treat something as property. Just do something that makes a male silverback gorilla think you are after one of his females and watch him go nuts. Those are his.
And Roman women? At least in the upper echelon of society, they were used as trading assets for money and power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
The less society is civilized, the more equal women are, as much as that is physiologically possible. Hunters gatherers couldn't afford a female piece of property and had no use for it.
Think your logic is a little confused and you have got that all backwards. In hunter/gather times the hunters needed their women to gather because hunting wasn't always successful. So they might have valued their roles more but that also meant they had a greater need to keep those women in their "rightful" role. What we are seeing is that the more civilized/advanced a society, the more the roles of males and females get blurred. Technology and commerce has rendered the physical advantage of males less propitious because it can be replaced with products. If you think about it, and some of the changes in society reflect this, women have the upper hand because they give birth. Women can have children using technology to replace men fairly easily by purchasing sperm. There are no baby cooking machines out there for men to usurp the woman's role in procreation. At least not yet.
Women are sold. It is called a bride price and it is still commonly practiced in the Arab Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. (not sure on the other 2, though the American Jewish women I know would never in a million years accept an arranged marriage). Furthermore in places like Saudi Arabia strict criminal punishments for dating and laws requiring that women have a male guardian make divorce and re-marriage difficult.
And no they don't particularly care about character they care about scratch. That is how this kind of stuff happens.
I was talking about America, not the middle east. The American Jews you know may not ever want an arranged marriage, but I guarantee that they know what a shidduh is and the practice is common enough.
Well that would most likely be because for most of history women and children were considered property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Can you name someone who sold his wife?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Well in ancient times if someone raped a guys wife they had to pay the man restitution, and the man whose wife it was often had a role in punishment. Furthermore, there were a whole lot of people who sold their daughters.
Still looking for a name...
Since you allege this practice was so widespread, this shouldn't be difficult.
Last edited by momonkey; 01-13-2013 at 10:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
