Feedback please: Three Questions on the topic of "Women's Oppression" in history.

kevinwayne · 2013-09-11T23:12:25+00:00

I've developed these as 3 salient questions to use on the topic of Women being oppressed in history. Particularly in debates with Feminism. Curious to...

[–]Pecanpig 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (112 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (111 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it'll accomplish much, because those are simple questions for women to answer. The easiest response is to point to the first half of the 1900s. A woman seeking employment had very limited options available to her, outside of secretary/sewing/nurse/teacher. They couldn't vote for the first few decades, and the ones seeking equal treatment were accused of wanting to be men or other stupid things.

What about men? If they had a family they were expected to be the sole provider, but this was known ahead of time and the man would only find himself in that position if he chose it. The one truly big drawback to being male was the military draft, and that can't be overlooked... but aside from that, men had a lot of freedom and women were denied the same chances.

Did women benefit? Some of them, I guess. Some women were just fine with becoming housewives and letting the man take care of earning the money. But the ones who didn't want that life found no benefit in it at all.

The argument that you are going for makes sense if you're talking about long-ago historic times, when the majority of men had no choice but to work hard all day, either hunting or working a farm or blacksmithing etc., while the women took care of the house, did food preparation and cooking (which was a ton more work back then), and raised the children. In these times where so much work was necessary just to survive, neither side was really privileged, and both had challenging lives.

[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (91 children) | Copy Link

Of course women had some problems at the time with regards to unjust workplace discrimination but what I've heard from a lot of old women (I had a good conversation with some last time I visited my grandmother on my fathers side) it's massively overblown. Pre 50's women had the same inclinations as today, very few wanted to be scientists/engineers and fewer still were capable of it. I am not saying that the discrimination in the past wasn't an issue but that it was a minor one, lower on my list than those shitty solid metal bumpers that 50's cars had.

Men didn't have many more options than women, being single was always an option of course but that goes for both genders, and it's a shitty option. I also wouldn't consider the draft to be the biggest of problems for men in the US (I'm assuming we're talking about the US as it's the only country I can think of where women couldn't vote in the 1900's) due to how rarely it was used and how few it effected, I'd say organizing the system was a bigger problem due to the financial waste.

Those women benefited as much as the men, they had the option to take up their traditional gender role or live alone.

Ironic that the world was egalitarian (for the most part) 10,000 years ago and has been getting worse ever since.

PS: Women couldn't vote but there was a very good reason for that at the time so I'm not really considering that to be a valid point, feel free to disagree.

PS#2: My original point was to use words instead of acronyms.

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (90 children) | Copy Link

very few wanted to be scientists/engineers and fewer still were capable of it

But the ones who were, they had roadblocks and obstacles getting in their way at every step that men didn't have.

There aren't a ton of men that try to become engineers either... that doesn't mean it's OK to not allow it.

I'd be interested in hearing why being forced to join the military and fight for your life in another country when you don't want to is a small issue. That's a little worse of a situation to find yourself in than "but... your gender isn't supposed to want to do that".

I'm not sure I know what "very good reason" there was to give one gender the vote but not another, when both genders are equally capable of considering the issues. I don't consider the intentional lack of political education given to women to be a good reason.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

If you think a woman had the same job opportunities as a man back then, and didn't constantly face a stream of "women can't do that" "why are you here" "women aren't smart enough to understand this stuff" "we don't have any positions open for women", then I don't know what to say to you.

There just wasn't equal treatment back then. Look at the first woman to run in a marathon, in 1967 (not that terribly long ago!). Whenever she tried, she was disallowed from entering the race because she's just a woman and women are too weak and incapable. She lied and filled out false paperwork to get into the race, and when it started a race official tried to grab her and physically remove her from the race. It was still another 5 years after this that women were given the right to make their own choices about whether they can run in a marathon or not.

And that's just for a footrace! Do you think they were letting women near the truly important jobs in society, 50 years before that? The only women with influence were the ones who happened to marry important men who had positions of power.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I am comparing blacks to women. Both are groups of human beings that did not have equal rights or opportunities in life in the past.

I made that comparison because you are saying that women should not complain if they encounter sexist company leaders that won't promote qualified women into positions of power. Instead, you told women to make their own companies and run them the way they want to.

That is the same as the short-lived "separate but equal" doctrine that was a complete failure in the past, and only served to extend inequality.

For some reason, you seem to have a problem with treating all humans as equals, and think that it's acceptable for women to be discriminated against because they can just go "start their own company". I think you'll find that this kind of attitude is generally opposed in today's society... most people tend to be in favor of equality for everyone.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, I am comparing blacks to women. Both are groups of human beings that did not have equal rights or opportunities in life in the past.

And how many blacks were able to marry into the aristocracy?

Do you even understand what a legitimate minority is?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/minority

**mi·nor·i·ty

a. A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part. b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society. c. A member of one of these groups. See Usage Note at color.

There is no way you can say that women who were part of the aristocracy had no power & influence. None.

I think you need to have your paradigms enlarged:

http://youtu.be/oMzcMATRGmE

I made that comparison because you are saying that women should not complain if they encounter sexist company leaders that won't promote qualified women into positions of power.

Really? And where, pray tell, did I say this?

You are seriously starting to piss me off, and I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

Instead, you told women to make their own companies and run them the way they want to. That is the same as the short-lived "separate but equal" doctrine that was a complete failure in the past, and only served to extend inequality.

Here it is again! Entrepreneurship = discrimination. Something went wrong with you=r education when you cannot understand the meaning of words.

For some reason, you seem to have a problem with treating all humans as equals, and think that it's acceptable for women to be discriminated against because they can just go "start their own company". I think you'll find that this kind of attitude is generally opposed in today's society... most people tend to be in favor of equality for everyone.

Women being able to prove themselves as equal to men, which is what they would be doing? Wow, topsy-turvy world we live in when that is called discrimination.

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I never said anything about the definition of a minority, nor did I even use the word at all.

I never said women had no power or influence at all.

When you say that women who don't like dealing with the glass ceiling should go open their companies and run them how they like, that strongly implies that you think the "glass ceiling" is acceptable, and the correct way for women to handle this problem is to make their own companies instead of removing the glass ceiling.

You are advocating for women to make their own separate businesses, instead of being allowed equal opportunities in the existing ones. This is the "separate but equal" doctrine. Instead of removing the discrimination inside the existing businesses, you find a way to let it continue to exist. Why?

But then in your final sentences it sounds like you -are- for giving women the chance to prove themselves as equals, and the opportunity to gain promotions if they earn it, just like any man has. So which one is it? Are you for the glass ceiling + "get your own separate company", or are you against that?

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

When you say that women who don't like dealing with the glass ceiling should go open their companies and run them how they like, that strongly implies that you think the "glass ceiling" is acceptable, and the correct way for women to handle this problem is to make their own companies instead of removing the glass ceiling.

And so women go out and start their own companies. They run it the way they want to, promote and pay whomever however they like. New jobs are created, and nobody has to get beat out by affirmative action. Eventually the whole world see it and goes "Hey, those women are pretty sharp! The can do anything a man can!" Then the companies they left behind see this and realize they need to be hiring more of these smart women, doggone it!

You are calling that an injustice?

0o0o0o0o0o0o0okaaayyyyyyyy.

You are advocating for women to make their own separate businesses, instead of being allowed equal opportunities in the existing ones. This is the "separate but equal" doctrine.

That is the most absurd comparison I've seen yet, and I've seen some doozy's. Leave it to a Feminist to think of that one.

No pay attention:

Entrepreneurship = Entrepreneurship

Discrimination = Discrimination

Entrepreneurship =/= Discrimination

Got it, now?

Are you for the glass ceiling + "get your own separate company", or are you against that?

Can you even prove there is even a Glass Ceiling?

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

In just re-reading the comment by fredflints that you are replying to here, you missed the train entirely. He told you that science at one time was about tinkering with magnets or whatever on your own. What stopped women from doing it? You completely avoided the question and started talking about other areas where they were denied entry based on being deemed unqualified.

So why didn't women take the time out to play with magnets or prisms?

Because a lot of them were too busy making babies and raising them, which is the crux of the matter as to why they were assigned different roles. It's all about survival.

OTOH, if you looked into Emma Goldman, whom I mentioned to you in another comment, she bypassed most of that - her first marriage lasted 1 year, second marriage appears to be one of convenience. Appears she had no children. She was considered a "loose woman" by society. But guess what? She had a robust career as a writer, speaker & activist. Because of the sacrifices she made.

Sacrifices?

Don't tell me most Feminists today are even talking about that. It's more "Gubbament, gimme a job."

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

No one was stopping women from learning about certain topics. But they often did face many obstacles on their path to becoming a lawyer/doctor/etc. that the men on the same path did not have to face.

Yes these poor poor poor women.

Sitting on the internet (constructed by men) on computers or phones (built by men) in houses (constructed by men) going to jobs in vehicles (invented, developed, built by men) using electricity (lines dug and constructed by men, wiring installed by men) getting up to fix a quick snack in a microwave (invented, built by men) going to flush a toilet (invented by men, running water by men, sewer lines dug out by men.)

Men have just not done shit to bring women into the mainstream of life, eh? Women had to do it all.

Whether other women spent their time "making babies" is irrelevant,

Excuse me for thinking history is relevant.

And it is simply a fact that women were not treated equally in the past.

You could argue that they were actually treated better. Sitting on your ass wile the old man has to go off to war and drawing a check if he buys in on the field, with your opportunities to marry again? Such a deal.

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Once again, when confronted with facts that prove women didn't have equal treatment, your reaction is to mock them and make fun of the fact that their mistreatment isn't the worst thing to ever happen to a human being.

What facts are you referring to?

You're ignoring the issue. Just because most women at the time were housewives "making babies", that doesn't mean it's right to restrict women from doing much beyond that.

Who is doing that?

There is no reason to disallow a single woman from having a successful career if she wants to earn it.

Who is disallowing them?

It doesn't matter which gender has it better. We should all be treated as equals, rather than categorized based on what genitals we have.

ROFLMFAO!!!!

You've been doing that the whole time. What exactly do you propose to do to make it right? Take a job away from a man who is more qualified and possibly keep his family from being fed just to placate a less qualified woman in the name of "equality?"

And why should we? If gender doesn't matter?

[–]chocoboat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anti-suffragists, and much of society in general when it came to earning high level jobs

Anti suffragists do not exist anymore, or at least as an organized entity with any clout.

Who supposedly is stopping them from getting high earning jobs? Who? Where? Do you have proof of this, or do you just assume the answer?

The people who would tell them "women can't do that", "women aren't capable of that", "we don't hire women here", "women aren't accepted into this program".

Who???

When???

You've been arguing that women have to start their own companies instead of being allowed the same opportunities as men.

Women starting their own companies is not equal treatment. Wow. New one on me. So you are arguing against them having their own businesses? What are you sexist or something? You're denying them equal opportunity!

Equality is not "let's take things away from people with dangly genitals and give them to people with internal genitals".

I agree. So why would you want to do that? That's what gender-based affirmative action is!

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anti suffragists do not exist anymore, or at least as an organized entity with any clout. Who supposedly is stopping them from getting high earning jobs? Who? Where? Do you have proof of this, or do you just assume the answer?

Did you forget that we're talking about the early 1900s?

Women starting their own companies is not equal treatment. Wow. New one on me. So you are arguing against them having their own businesses? What are you sexist or something? You're denying them equal opportunity!

Are you intentionally being dense in order to try to prove some point?

What I'm against is telling women, upon their encountering sexists who won't promote them and reinforce the "glass ceiling", that their only option is to start their own company if they want to have a place that doesn't discriminate against women. I'm against ignoring the glass ceiling, and for fighting against the people who don't treat women as equals.

Since you seem to need to be told this, that does not mean I think women shouldn't be allowed to start their own businesses. I'm for equality, remember? I think women should have all of the same rights/responsibilities/opportunities that a man has.

And I never said anything about gender-based affirmative action. You're confusing me with a strawman you once met.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you forget that we're talking about the early 1900s?

No, but you apparently have. You keep talking about all that as if the people back then are even operating with the same paradigms as we have today.

Are you intentionally being dense in order to try to prove some point?

Tu quoque.

What I'm against is telling women, upon their encountering sexists who won't promote them and reinforce the "glass ceiling"

WHO is doing that?

that their only option is to start their own company if they want to have a place that doesn't discriminate against women.

WHO is saying that?

Since you seem to need to be told this, that does not mean I think women shouldn't be allowed to start their own businesses.

How does it feel to have words put in your mouth? :]

I'm for equality, remember? I think women should have all of the same rights/responsibilities/opportunities that a man has.

If you actually assume they should have all the responsibilities a man has, you will be the 1st Feminist ever.

And I never said anything about gender-based affirmative action. You're confusing me with a strawman you once met.

Then what is supposedly your great solution to the problem? What are you going to do to cause these evil Male CEO's you say are nailing women's feet to the floor to straighten out & fly right?

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, but you apparently have.

Then why did you talk about anti-suffragists not existing today?

WHO is doing that? WHO is saying that?

While anti-suffragists do not exist today, we do still have sexists, and some of them are in positions of power. Sometimes they promote less-qualified men instead of more-qualified women, because they internally believe a woman is inherently inferior to a man. They have irrational concerns that a woman will screw up at her job and make expensive mistakes, or not be effective, or will crack under the pressure.

If you are asking for a list of everyone's name who has done this, I'm afraid I can't provide that for you.

If you actually assume they should have all the responsibilities a man has, you will be the 1st Feminist ever.

Who said I was a feminist?

Then what is supposedly your great solution to the problem?

I'm not offering a cure-all solution. Promoting that idea that everyone in society should treat everyone else as an equal, and eradicating sexism, is a slow process that will take time.

But I'm sure as hell not telling people to ignore it and go start their own company if they don't like it.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then why did you talk about anti-suffragists not existing today?

I didn't. You did.

While anti-suffragists do not exist today, we do still have sexists, and some of them are in positions of power. Sometimes they promote less-qualified men instead of more-qualified women,

Really. And what is your proof of this? Who is doing this to whom?

They have irrational concerns that a woman will screw up at her job and make expensive mistakes, or not be effective, or will crack under the pressure.

LOL Okaaayyyyyy.

WHO? WHERE? WHEN? Who is this mythical "they" you refer to? Can you name 10? 5? Even one?

If you are asking for a list of everyone's name who has done this, I'm afraid I can't provide that for you.

Because you're talking out your ass and don't really know?

Who said I was a feminist?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I'm not offering a cure-all solution. Promoting that idea that everyone in society should treat everyone else as an equal, and eradicating sexism, is a slow process that will take time.

So you really don't have a plan, just this nebulous "promoting?"

But I'm sure as hell not telling people to ignore it and go start their own company if they don't like it.

Who supposedly has?

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Uh, no. That was you. You asked who was trying to prevent women from gaining the right to vote in the 1900s, and I answered "anti-suffragists". You then randomly pointed out that they don't exist in the year 2013, for no apparent reason.

Nope. Never said that, because you were confused about the era I was asking about.

Your demands are idiotic. I can't name any male rape victim's names either, so does that mean men never get raped? I can't pull a list out of my pocket full of names of men who had unfair child custody judges, guess that means it never happens?

Funny, I can:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/33593/canadian-man-sexually-assaulted-by-four-women-showing-rape-goes-both-ways

http://www.fillerfund.com/marykellett.htm

There's 1 of each. So how about you show proof of what you were ~~making up~~ saying before?

I suspect everyone looks like a feminist to a person who argues in favor of denying women the right to vote

I suspect everyone who doesn't agree with a Feminist looks like they are trying to deny basic rights to women. To a Feminist, anyway.

I bet if we were to take a poll on this subreddit, most would agree that you are.

You really might want to see a doctor about your short term memory issues.

You might really want to see a specialist about not proving your assertions. Nobody here has said anything of the kind.

[–]kevinwayne2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So I'm still waiting for you to prove the following:

The existence of the so-called "Glass Ceiling." What proof is there that there are so-called "good 'ol boys clubs" sitting at the top of corporations rubbing their hands with glee at the idea of keeping women out of the upper echelons of wealth and position?
The existence of men refusing to hire women for whatever irrational reason or list of reasons that you claim they have.
Proof that i said women shouldn't be hired in these companies.
Proof that Women starting their own companies is "Separate but Equal."
Proof that I said women shouldn't vote.

Come on, you seem so sure of these things. But when you are asked to verify them, you show yourself unable to back up your big mouth with anything of substance. Let's see some real action here, or you're just blowin' smoke out'cha bunghole.

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OK there, genius

No genius. Just WAY smarter than you (though admittedly not a huge feat).

Racism is the belief that people of other races share certain attributes which make them, as a whole, inferior and not equal to your race.

Which is what your version of equality does in effect. It sets a single standard by which all races/genders are measured against. Those that don't meet that standard are considered "not equal" (inferior). Even if it's the groups natural tendencies and choices that create the "not equal" state (such as women and the choices which create the wage gap). So if your idea of "equal" is superior, then the qualities that are natural to the group which cause the "not equal" state are inferior.

Or, to put it more simply, since equality requires an objective metric any natural tendency of a group that causes them to be or to make choices that cause them to not be equal must be inferior.

Sexism is the belief that people of the opposite gender share certain attributes which make them, as a whole, inferior and not equal to your gender.

No. You might want to try that one again.

Equality, by definition, is Not Those Things. Bam.

Nothing you said argued against the reasoning I presented. So my argument stands.

I'm done with you. Enjoy getting the last word.

Again, the cowards way out.

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

But the ones who were, they had roadblocks and obstacles getting in their way at every step that men didn't have.

Madam Curie would probably slap you in the face for saying that, and then you'd die of cancer.

There aren't a ton of men that try to become engineers either... that doesn't mean it's OK to not allow it.

Relatively speaking there are a ton, like at least a 10/1 ratio. (that's seriously 5-10x lower than what I've observed)

I'd be interested in hearing why being forced to join the military and fight for your life in another country when you don't want to is a small issue. That's a little worse of a situation to find yourself in than "but... your gender isn't supposed to want to do that".

I meant it wasn't all that big of an issue because it doesn't happen very often, not anymore that is.

I'm not sure I know what "very good reason" there was to give one gender the vote but not another, when both genders are equally capable of considering the issues. I don't consider the intentional lack of political education given to women to be a good reason.

Women were not responsible for anything not even themselves, as such they had less power over things in general. Why should women be allowed to have shit all say in war or economics when they have no responsibility for either?

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Curie's father was a teacher with access to all kinds of scientific equipment, which he brought home with him. Hardly typical for a young girl.

She managed to rise as far as being a physics professor's research assistant, before finding that no further advancement in that field was available to her because she's a woman. So she decided to apply to Krakow University, where she was denied entry because she's a woman. Fortunately, she had married Pierre Curie by this point, and because of him she still had access to scientific research equipment.

Is that what you call an shining example of women having all of the same opportunities as men, without obstacles being put in their way due to their gender?

I meant it wasn't all that big of an issue because it doesn't happen very often, not anymore that is.

Well that makes sense then, but I was talking about the military drafts earlier in the 1900s, including for WW2 and Vietnam. I'd take "you can't attend this college because of genitals" over "you're storming Omaha Beach with us" any day.

Why should women be allowed to have shit all say in war or economics when they have no responsibility for either?

I don't really think women in the 1900s were a non-factor in the US economy. Good point about war though - it's not right to let you vote on war if you never were at risk of having to be part of a war. But of course, the solution isn't to deny voting rights... it's to treat everyone as equals, so that situation can't come up in the first place.

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Citation's needed.

Well that makes sense then, but I was talking about the military drafts earlier in the 1900s, including for WW2 and Vietnam. I'd take "you can't attend this college because of genitals" over "you're storming Omaha Beach with us" any day.

Would you take a 0.01% chance of having to storm a beach or a 10% chance of not being allowed into a specific college?

I don't really think women in the 1900s were a non-factor in the US economy. Good point about war though - it's not right to let you vote on war if you never were at risk of having to be part of a war. But of course, the solution isn't to deny voting rights... it's to treat everyone as equals, so that situation can't come up in the first place.

The situation of going to war predated the situation of voting, when voting came out it only made sense to give it specifically to men. Remember, in 1910 women were even less usefull to the military then they are today (negative value) so "equality" at the time was truly absurd.

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Would you take a 0.01% chance of having to storm a beach or a 10% chance of not being allowed into a specific college?

I think the odds were higher than that on both sides, and I'm not sure what the relevance of the question is supposed to be. I would pick the option with 0% chance of death, unless you skew the odds to something like 0.00000000000001% vs 99%.

Remember, in 1910 women were even less usefull to the military then they are today (negative value) so "equality" at the time was truly absurd.

And that is why, over many decades, society has changed and promoted equality between the sexes so that now today, women are treated as equals. This is a good thing, is it not? If this situation could have existed in 1910 as well, that would have been a good thing too, right?

Equal treatment for everyone just sounds like the best way for a society to work, if you ask me.

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Well the first one is undoubtedly extremely low, as for the latter? I think it's pretty damned low as well if you put in"due to gender", probably far less than 10%.

Are you talking about the modern day now? Because the discussion originated from women being rejected from college and military drafts from many decades ago. No woman gets rejected from college due to her gender today, outside of the Middle East anyway.

10 million of our nation's 66 million males were drafted for WW2. Consider that many of the 66 million were either children or over 40, your odds of getting drafted were not very low.

I think a society that treats everyone as equals would have been ideal in any time period. That does not mean I think women should have served as soldiers in WW1 - that would be forcing equal responsibilties onto a society that isn't ready for it. But if American society had been treating women as equals since 1850, it would have worked.

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can't figure out which time period you're talking about. There were approximately 66 million males in the United States in 1941, and about 10 million of them were drafted and sent to fight in World War 2. That's almost a 1 in 6 chance to be sent to war... and probably more like 1 in 4 when you take into to account that many of those 66 million were seniors or children.

Of course the odds of being drafted today are near 0. So are the odds of a European female with an interest in science being turned away from college due to her gender. But we aren't talking about today. I don't even know what point you are trying to make about 1910 now. I'll just leave it with this - I am in favor of treating everyone as equals in every way. And I hope that people recognize we haven't 100% achieved that goal yet, and that we were further away from the goal in 1910.

That isn't exactly a controversial statement, but around here, I'm not sure what to expect now.

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

She managed to rise as far as being a physics professor's research assistant

She was a Professor at the university of Paris and won a Nobel Prize in two separate fields. I should also mention that she is the only person ever to do that at this time.

before finding that no further advancement in that field was available to her because she's a woman.

Yeah, once a woman gets that second of the highest prizes in academics those male bastards won't let her get any further, lest they feel threatened. The sexist pigs.

So she decided to apply to Krakow University

And then joined Warsaws Floating University where she was educated until she was offered a position in to study at the university of Paris which she had to turn down due to a lack of money. So she self-studied and worked as a governess for years until she had enough money to go to the university.

Fortunately, she had married Pierre Curie by this point, and because of him she still had access to scientific research equipment.

Actually she earned her first degree in physics a year before she met him. Then the year they did meet she earned her second degree. She had also started doing research into the magnetic properties of steels before she met him.

What Pierre did was after she had those degrees and was doing legitimate work he helped her find her own laboratory. This was how they met. Not anything that happened after or because they were married.

Pecanpig was right. Madam Curie would pimp slap you around the block for saying these things.

By making up all of this bullshit to serve your own agenda you do a great disservice to how awesome this person really was and everything that she accomplished and had to deal with to do all the great work that she did.

Is that what you call an shining example of women having all of the same opportunities as men, without obstacles being put in their way due to their gender?

It is unless you're going to completely misrepresent someones history to create obstacles that weren't there.

The only disadvantage being a woman gave her was that she couldn't go to school in Poland. The same Poland that was currently controlled by a brutal Russian dictatorship that was oppressing her entire population and disallowing most science being taught anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html

http://www.aip.org/history/curie/brief/01_poland/poland_3.html

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alzael1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alzael1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

They couldn't vote for the first few decades,

You need to more carefully read Question #3.

I don't think women were even united on the question of voting. Do a search for "Anti-Suffrage Movement," "Women's National Anti-Suffrage League," "Helen Kendrick Johnson," "Emma Goldman." Furthermore, most men weren't able to vote, as well. (See Question #1.)

Did women benefit? Some of them, I guess.

You guess?

Being married to an aristocrat it could be argued, gave one more leverage than actual voting. That's why there was an Anti-Suffrage Women's Movement to begin with. Socializing the vote spread the influence around a lot more than they wanted.

Do you realize that:

The Tender Years Doctrine,
Prohibition,
Raising the Age of Consent from 12 to 16 or even 18 in some states,

...were things that women pushed for and got, all prior to getting the right to vote?

Also, you might want to read the comment above by fredflints. He expands on what I'm saying quite a bit.

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

You are absolutely right that women weren't all united on the issues. Even today, there are many women who think that women should not be allowed to make their own choices on abortion and birth control, that women aren't capable to serve in the military, and that traditional gender roles (with men in charge) should be reinforced.

But I don't think that's the most relevant thing to be discussing. There are plenty of men who think circumcision is fine because "mine turned out fine, so who cares". Does that prove that circumcision is good, or should be acceptable by society? Hardly.

I did not claim that women were utterly oppressed and had their wishes completely ignored by a society that treated them like animals. Men did listen to their wives, and pass some laws that were suggested by women or were in the best interests of women. But the point is that the men had to be the ones to take the action, the women couldn't propose it themselves or vote for it themselves... the men did have all of the power. They didn't horribly abuse the power or anything, but they still had the final say, and that was unfair to women.

Please don't mistake me for some anti-MRA here, I'm simply stating the facts. Would you be OK living in a society where only women can vote, even if they didn't abuse the power and took men's suggestions seriously?

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

But I don't think that's the most relevant thing to be discussing. There are plenty of men who think circumcision is fine because "mine turned out fine, so who cares". Does that prove that circumcision is good, or should be acceptable by society? Hardly.

Why are we trying to determine for others what is "good?"

Please don't mistake me for some anti-MRA here, I'm simply stating the facts. Would you be OK living in a society where only women can vote, even if they didn't abuse the power and took men's suggestions seriously?

I might be. If I thought my lot in life would be worse off the other way. Many women agreed. And that's where you're missing the boat. Put yourself in their shoes, rather then going "Oh, my they didn't want women to vote, Bad, Bad!"

I think you've shown me why my 3 Questions are on the right track.

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Why are we trying to determine for others what is "good?"

Because that's what we do as human beings. We try to create a society that is good, and eliminate the bad things in it.

I am putting myself in women's shoes (not literally. lol), and I'm having a lot of trouble imagining how my lot in life would be worse if I was treated like a full fledged human being rather than a second class citizen. The only way would be is if I was truly a second class person - weak, lazy, incompetent, and felt that I can't get by without my "betters" helping me and providing for me. But even then I'd oppose that way of life being forced on every woman, because what works for me shouldn't be forced on others... everyone should have their right to choose.

If you think your questions are going to enlighten feminists by making them realize "maybe my life would be better if I was useless and someone took care of me but it would be worth it to have no responsibilities", I have my doubts about your success.

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Because that's what we do as human beings. We try to create a society that is good, and eliminate the bad things in it.

No, that is not what we do, unless you think that it's a good thing to put sandals on the natives feet. What you are doing is Cultural Imperialism.

I am putting myself in women's shoes (not literally. lol), and I'm having a lot of trouble imagining how my lot in life would be worse if I was treated like a full fledged human being rather than a second class citizen.

No, you are putting yourself in 20th century Feminist shoes. You completely ignore the shoes of the women who would have vehemently disagreed with you.

The only way would be is if I was truly a second class person - weak, lazy, incompetent, and felt that I can't get by without my "betters" helping me and providing for me.

Wow. Talk about being elitist.

But even then I'd oppose that way of life being forced on every woman, because what works for me shouldn't be forced on others... everyone should have their right to choose.

And yet, you want to "force" Suffrage on people who don't want it?

If you think your questions are going to enlighten feminists by making them realize "maybe my life would be better if I was useless and someone took care of me but it would be worth it to have no responsibilities", I have my doubts about your success.

Boy are you off the beam and out to lunch. Thanks for the assumptions about my motives.

You're in the wrong subredit, that's all.

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Cultural imperialism? I'm sorry? Are you saying women are natives from another culture, whose simple ways of life we shouldn't disturb?

What women would have vehemently disagreed with me? Traditionalists who believe the woman's place is in the kitchen, obeying her husband's commands? Not sure what your point is here.

Elitist? What are you even talking about? Please clarify what your points are, and why you disagree with mine. I don't know what kind of woman wants to be treated as a second class citizen who needs to be taken care of but doesn't want equal rights, I really don't.

Suffrage isn't forced onto anyone. If you don't want to participate in the political process, you don't have to.

I honestly don't know what your motives are. It sounds like you're saying that we'd be better off if women didn't have equal rights and couldn't vote, to me. If you attempt to convince people of this (which I don't know if you plan to or not), I doubt you will get far.

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

OK. The wikipedia link makes it sound like it was a right-wing political movement, made up of conservative women who didn't want to give all women the vote, believing that this would mean an influx of voters that would favor the Left.

While I think that's a shitty reason to continue not treating women as equals, it is one that I hadn't considered, so thank you for enlightening me on that.

The second link discusses women who wanted to preserve traditional gender roles, believing that women are better off with them. That is the issue that I had already been discussing - they wanted to force all women to follow those roles, even the women who didn't want to, in order to maintain a situation that provided benefits for women.

Like I said already, that's a shitty reason to deny women equality. "I like having simpler responsibilities and having men taken care of me, therefore you can't become a lawyer" is a selfish and stupid reason to control other people's lives.

I can only guess at your motivations since you don't say what they are, but continue to argue a pro-inequality position.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OK. The wikipedia link makes it sound like it was a right-wing political movement, made up of conservative women who didn't want to give all women the vote, believing that this would mean an influx of voters that would favor the Left.

But you didn't read all of it, apparently. Emma Goldman was an Anarchist, and had her own reasons:

Anti-suffragism was not limited to conservative elements. The anarchist Emma Goldman opposed suffragism on the grounds that women were more inclined toward legal enforcement of morality (as in the Women's Christian Temperance Union); that women were the equals of men; and that suffrage would not make a difference. She also said that activists ought to advocate revolution rather than seek greater privileges within an inherently unjust system.[7] Progressives criticized suffrage in the Utah Territory as a cynical Mormon ploy, resulting in the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act.

While I think that's a shitty reason to continue not treating women as equals, it is one that I hadn't considered, so thank you for enlightening me on that.

Is it possible for you at all to just accept things for as they were, and not cast judgement on it, because you ain't in their skin?

The second link discusses women who wanted to preserve traditional gender roles, believing that women are better off with them. That is the issue that I had already been discussing - they wanted to force all women to follow those roles, even the women who didn't want to, in order to maintain a situation that provided benefits for women.

But yet you want to force suffrage on others, even at the possible risk of someone having to lose their business?

Put yourself in the shoes of those who have to live with the consequences of your decisions for once. Can you do that?

I can only guess at your motivations since you don't say what they are, but continue to argue a pro-inequality position.

If you keep making assumptions like that and not really listening, I'm done with this discussion.

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is it possible for you at all to just accept things for as they were, and not cast judgement on it, because you ain't in their skin?

I guess not. I think that treating all people as equals is pretty important, and if you're going to fight against it then you better have a damn good reason. "I don't like that group's political views, what if they vote for something I don't like" is not a very good reason.

I understand their viewpoint, but I also judge it. I don't think it was the right thing to do.

I don't know why you keep talking about "forced suffrage". No one has to vote if they don't want to.

OK, I'm in the shoes of someone who will directly be negatively affected by women having the right to vote. "This is terrible news, I'm going to lose money/influence/whatever because the women voted for something that harms me. Should I go out and advocate against women being treated as equals (even though I don't believe it), just because it would benefit my own interests? No, I guess I won't, because I'm not a shitty person."

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I guess not. I think that treating all people as equals is pretty important, and if you're going to fight against it then you better have a damn good reason.

Who are you to judge what is a good reason?

I understand their viewpoint, but I also judge it. I don't think it was the right thing to do.

And they judge yours is wrong too. So?

OK, I'm in the shoes of someone who will directly be negatively affected by women having the right to vote. "This is terrible news, I'm going to lose money/influence/whatever because the women voted for something that harms me. Should I go out and advocate against women being treated as equals (even though I don't believe it), just because it would benefit my own interests? No, I guess I won't, because I'm not a shitty person."

That's not putting yourself in their shoes. That's snarkiness.

[–]chocoboat0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am a moral person who is capable of judging what is sensible. What, do I have to pass some kind of test to be allowed an opinion?

Apparently you think so. You want 18th and 19th century men and women to think like you, coming from a paradigm where voting rights are a given.

Remember: Voting was NOT allowed to all men. if you were not a property owner or a non-white, you couldn't vote. So to say "Men" had the right to vote and "Women" did not is actually false.

Do you realize that after women got the right to vote, their 18 - 21 brothers still weren't allowed to, but could still die in a war?

That is literally what I would think if I was in their shoes. I would not argue against equality just because it would give me financial benefit (or prevent a financial loss).

If you were to lose the family business? No longer be able to put food on the table and you had a wife and several kids? You wouldn't care?

"Just take everything I got, man. As long as some chick I never met gets to mark a ballot somewhere."

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Apparently you think so.

Huh?

You want 18th and 19th century men and women to think like you, coming from a paradigm where voting rights are a given.

I wish they had, but I can understand why they didn't. It's easy to get used to things being the way they are, and change is slow and takes time. But that doesn't mean they were right to support things like slavery, either.

If you were to lose the family business? No longer be able to put food on the table and you had a wife and several kids? You wouldn't care?

I would be very upset about that. I would care quite a bit. But that doesn't mean I would spread lies and deny other people equal rights just to prevent my loss from happening.

By the way, I should point out how extremely rarely this situation ever happened (if it even did happen) as a result of giving women the right to vote. It's not like women suddenly took over and outlawed things and ran businesses into the ground.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I wish they had, but I can understand why they didn't.

Yeah, when voting didn't exist prior to that, it's a little hard. But that never seems to occur to you. You think there should be voting and then "presto change-o" everyone can vote! It doesn't seem to sink into you that not everyone is going to automatically think like you, especially 200+ years ago. That's why you are clearly operating from an elitist perspective, or cultural imperialism.

The only other Democracy that the Americans had to go on as a model as far as I know is Greece, and the men still made all the decisions there, too.

I would be very upset about that. I would care quite a bit. But that doesn't mean I would spread lies

And who's lying?

and deny other people equal rights just to prevent my loss from happening.

Leave alone the fact that I simply think you are talking out your rear, and that you've never ran a business or been responsible for other people's lives and as such we can seriously doubt you'd be so cavalier about it. It still begs the question: Equal rights to what? How can you say it's "equal rights" when not all the women agreed on the same things?

By the way, I should point out how extremely rarely this situation ever happened (if it even did happen) as a result of giving women the right to vote. It's not like women suddenly took over and outlawed things and ran businesses into the ground.

Because people weren't stupid enough to put up with it again.

And btw, you forgot that Prohibition happened before Suffrage. Women were not cut out of the decision making process, and that proves it. So does the fact that the were able to implement the Tender Years doctrine.

And so what? You are still imposing a post Suffrage paradigm on a people for whom voting had not existed for that long.

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And who's lying?

I would be, if I went around protesting against women having the right to vote just because it would benefit me financially.

Leave alone the fact that I simply think you are talking out your rear, and that you've never ran a business or been responsible for other people's lives and as such we can seriously doubt you'd be so cavalier about it.

It doesn't surprise me that someone who argues against women's suffrage and denies that they were ever oppressed is unable to conceive of a person who wouldn't tell lies and fight against other people having equal rights if it led to financial profit. I think each of us has a morality compass, and they're pointing in two different directions.

Equal rights to what?

The same rights as every other adult in the United States. What did you think I meant? Equal legal rights with a monkey?

How can you say it's "equal rights" when not all the women agreed on the same things?

I really don't think you understand what equal rights means. It means that everyone has the same rights under the law. You can vote, you can buy and sell property, you can run for office, and so on. You have no fewer legal rights than anyone else.

Equal rights has nothing to do with whether every person agrees on whether laws should be changed. It doesn't mean "every person gets their way".

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I would be, if I went around protesting against women having the right to vote just because it would benefit me financially.

That's not lying. That's having a different opinion.

It doesn't surprise me that someone who argues against women's suffrage

Nobody's doing that here. Now you stop lying.

This is why this convo has gone nowhere, because you repeatedly and apropos of nothing, accuse me of saying things I have not said and holding positions I do not hold.

unable to conceive of a person who wouldn't tell lies

Because you can't say you've been there, am I right?

and fight against other people having equal rights if it led to financial profit.

Financial profit. An interesting thing to call just being able to feed your family.

I think ~~one~~ of us has a morality compass, and the other one is brainwashed by Feminism.

FIFY

I really don't think you understand what equal rights means. It means that everyone has the same rights under the law. You can vote, you can buy and sell property, you can run for office, and so on. You have no fewer legal rights than anyone else.

But what if someone doesn't want those rights? What if they don't think society is better off for it, an they happen to be a member of the group you are trying to force these "rights" on? They have no say in the matter at all? That's totalitarianism.

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

For whom?

For everyone. Do you understand what equality is? You're asking me "how much equality" is it when certain things happen.

Equality means that everyone has equal rights under the law and equal voting power. If you manufacture and sell a product that some people see as harmful, and your society takes a vote and is overwhelmingly in favor of making your product illegal, that is an unfortunate turn of events for you. But it doesn't mean you have "less equality" or don't have equal rights as others.

I'm not even sure what the rest of your post is trying to say to me. I'm pointing my finger at people in the past and telling them to take a modern view? What does that mean? And whose shoes do you want me to put myself in?

Rather than insulting me, perhaps you could clearly explain your point and show me why I am wrong.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you realize that voting didn't even exist until 100-200 years ago?

If "equal" means "none for anyone", it is still equal.

I can tell somebody has never run a business or had to lose it.

I can tell somebody doesn't understand that equal rights has nothing to do with that subject.

I don't know how much more clear I can make myself. I think you are in the wrong place.

I am in favor of equal rights and responsibilities for everyone. Because I recognize that in some situations men do not have equal rights (to choose to be circumcised, to be treated fairly in divorce court) or equal responsibilities (being the only gender forced to register for selective service, being told by society to "man up" instead of being offered solutions to their problems), I participate in this subreddit.

And that's why I'm here arguing against a position of "women shouldn't be treated equally". I don't care who it is you think shouldn't be treated the same - blacks, Asians, dwarfs, homosexuals, skydivers, or competitive eaters. If you think any group of people shouldn't have the same rights, I'll disagree with it.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If "equal" means "none for anyone", it is still equal.

Not really. The aristocracy had more power than ever when there was no democracy. And women were able to ensconce themselves right in the middle of those aristocracies You cannot deny it.

I can tell somebody doesn't understand that equal rights has nothing to do with that subject.

Yep. Your point a finger at others and telling then you know what's best.

I am in favor of equal rights and responsibilities for everyone. Because I recognize that in some situations men do not have equal rights (to choose to be circumcised, to be treated fairly in divorce court) or equal responsibilities (being the only gender forced to register for selective service, being told by society to "man up" instead of being offered solutions to their problems), I participate in this subreddit.

Surely I am not the 1st to suggest you move on?

And that's why I'm here arguing against a position of "women shouldn't be treated equally". I don't care who it is you think shouldn't be treated the same - blacks, Asians, dwarfs, homosexuals, skydivers, or competitive eaters. If you think any group of people shouldn't have the same rights, I'll disagree with it.

Fine. And when you can show me I've said that, then maybe you will have a point.

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not really. The aristocracy had more power than ever when there was no democracy.

Well, of course. I was only referring to men vs women, not aristocrats vs commoners.

Yep. Your point a finger at others and telling then you know what's best.

That's right. I do know that equality for everyone is best.

Surely I am not the 1st to suggest you move on?

You aren't. Sadly, you are the third person I've met here who thinks that I don't belong because I believe in equality instead of giving men more power than women.

Fine. And when you can show me I've said that, then maybe you will have a point.

Are you kidding? You've been arguing against women having the right to vote, and saying they should open their own companies instead of being allowed to advance in companies that were started by men.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, of course. I was only referring to men vs women, not aristocrats vs commoners

And you cannot over-simplify things like that.

That's right. I do know that equality for everyone is best.

No you don't. How?

You aren't. Sadly, you are the third person I've met here who thinks that I don't belong because I believe in equality instead of giving men more power than women.

There is no one here, including myself who has argued anything even close to that. I can see you probably listen with an open mind to them about like you have to me, which is to say no open mind at all.

Are you kidding? You've been arguing against women having the right to vote,

Bzzzzzt! Sorry contestant, you're answer is incorrect.

and saying they should open their own companies instead of being allowed to advance in companies that were started by men.

Bzzzzzt! Sorry contestant, you're answer is incorrect!

Don't bother trying to try out for Jeopardy.

[–]chocoboat1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If that wasn't what you were saying, then what the fuck have you been talking about for over an hour?

I'm trying to tell you what history was all about, which you are obviously very ignorant of. I am trying to tell you that in the historical context of voting, you cannot expect that people would automatically go "Oh gosh, why don't we just make it so everyone can vote?" I'm telling you that you cannot speak for women and say they were all denied the right to vote, when:

There were men AND women on the suffrage side.
There were men AND women on the anti-suffrage side.

And I am telling you that I do not like pointing fingers at other cultures and times in history and going "Oh those bad, bad, bad people, look what they did," I think it's possible to appreciate and understand history without casting judgement on peoples reasons for doing things, and maybe even exercising a little empathy for them.

You on the other hand, think you're the Pope or something, able to decree from on high and determine for others what should & shouldn't be in their own sitz em leiben.

And I never once said anything about not allowing women to advance in companies already started by men. Not once. Didn't even imply it.

[–]RobWilard 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SJW_Scum 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There's no need to lead the question if the facts will back up your argument. I am a scientist, so let me try reformulating questions into a, um, more "sciencey" way!

1) What was the lot of the men in the same time & place? IOW, were they also denied the same privileges, and of not, what were the responsibilities places as an onus on men to be able to be counted worthy of those privileges?

Instead, simply repeat any statement deploring the female condition by asking as similar a question as possible about men. Insist on broad-spectrum—every woman, every man.

We stand in awe of skyscrapers we will never enter. We tread in disdain on sewers we will always use. — /u/SJW_Scum (professional quotemaker)

(I personally think they are both beautiful, for different reasons!

It can get nuanced with things like aristocratic women arguably having have more effective power than a poor white man. But the real objective is to take a look at the glass cellar. Yeah, the leaders were mostly men. What about the soldiers? Make sure to include non U.S. western sources too. A lot of (universal, white?) male suffrage was earned right after a particularly bloody war.

Now, in a democracy, you can very well argue that your whole class shouldn't have to spill blood and be decimated to the point of demographic significance to earn the right to vote. And indeed woman were not given this opportunity. But that is what happened. Ask them if that is the cost they are willing to pay.

2) Did Women accept and benefit from the lot in life they were given as a result of whatever privileges/responsibilities primarily thrust on men?

Rewritten: "Did women benefit from the fact many privileges and responsibilities were thrust on men?" Grammar: eliminated unnecessary words. Do not add unnecessary qualifiers to soften your statement because of possible edge cases and such. Make your argument concise, strong, and digestible!

Women arguably didn't have a choice about this. But neither did most men. The most immediate tangents I can think of:

Men were the ones in power. Yes, 1% of men were in power. What were their goals? If you're in a position of power, your goals are to secure it and then spread your agenda, be it arguable good or bad. How many of these powerful men were interested in advancing the interests of the common man, as opposed to their friends, personal convictions, social issues (Prohibition, now how did that pass?), economic issues, personal finances, etc.
Patriarchy. Well, what is it? Perhaps you can agree on the definition that it means that: "In social systems power is primarily held by adult men" (Wikipedia). I personally see no problem with this definition: it's a pretty good modernization of the Latin root ("rule by father") and is only descriptive in this form.
Patriarchial whatever. Now the problem is when implications are bolted on, created the infamous patriarchy theory. What is it? A conspiracy? The Man? Nebulous, complex social pressures? The Illuminati? God working in mysterious ways? There's no universal definition if this form, only convenient ones. Demand how they define patriarchy, and force them to stick with it. You cannot argue against moving targets. You can't even have a scientific debate in good faith without specifying definitions for anything that may be ambiguous or defined differently for different fields. And if anyone pulls out "Patriarchy backfiring" or "benevolent sexism", simply rephrase their statements as "Matriarchy at work" or "Matriarchal oppression."
BTW, who the fuck voted for women's suffrage when women couldn't vote for it themselves in the first place? Who indeed…
Rigid gender roles. Hurts both women and men. Yes, women didn't really get choices. Did men? They were more free to succeed—and to fail. These gender roles were useful for society in ancient times for people with less diversity of experiences than us. In modern times, I think they should be done away with. And I think feminism has done a great job—for women. So let masculinism follow in feminism's footstep's and do it for men! Across many societies, modern and ancient, large and tribal, boys coming of age often faced and initiation rite to be considered worthy men of social respect. Perhaps we must do the same for society. At the very least feminism either can not or will not do it for us. So we must do it ourselves.
Random example of the historical benefit of gender roles to society: Try running a large civilization without 1:1 marriage—polygamy, for example: get a lot of angry young men that if you don't throw into a war very soon will be apt to riot and dissent. See the effects of the one-child policy in China along with a preference for male children creating a cohort with significantly more men than women (1.1:1?). It's easier to compartmentalize people, make them focus on family work and breeding more glorious members for your glorious population.

3) What were women actually wanting? Were they all united on the question? And if they ever made it clear they wanted it, how long did it take for them to get it?

What did women actually desire, and what sacrifices did they make and how much time did they wait to get it?

Don't start off leading the question so bluntly. Forge the question such that you can subsequently take it in the direction of your argument.

If anyone tries to make an answer where women are a monolithic class, then question if they were all united? Men ain't no monolith, and neither are women. Fun example: feminists angry that women don't vote as a monolithic bloc. Because, you know, women aren't lemmings. I'd imagine it's just honestly insulting to many women.

Good hunting!

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SJW_Scum 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Feedback please: Three Questions on the topic of "Women's Oppression" in history.
Author	kevinwayne
Upvotes	11
Comments	140
Date	September 11, 2013 11:12 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1m7jmn/feedback_please_three_questions_on_the_topic_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feedback-please-three-questions-on-the-topic-of.1164109 https://theredarchive.com/post/1164109

Comments