Please, explain: why is this relevant?

tomek77 · 2010-05-26T16:26:46+00:00

I don't want to get into historical debates of who was the most oppressed, but let's just say that the points you mentioned are only half of the story. The other half might look like this:

men were required to stand up when a woman entered the room and kiss the hands of women as a form of greeting (chivalry)
men were required to sacrifice their lives for women, under penalty of death (For example: see Titanic)
men were risking their lives on a daily basis to feed their families (I would like to see if one of those women complaining about "wives being slaves" go back in time and switch her role with that of a mine worker, a farmer or a hunter...)
Only married women had no property rights: unmarried women enjoyed the same property rights as men (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Property-Early-Modern-England/dp/0415133408)

The feminist view of history seems to be a one-sided cherry-picked version of historical facts. A more scientific look shows a past where humanity was struggling, men were dying like flies trying to feed their families, and women were protected and provided for. In exchange, women cared for their husbands, because their own life depended on them. It was basic self-interest: if their husband died, so would they and their kids.

takfam · 2010-05-26T16:02:30+00:00

I've heard it explained that the types of women you describe want "Equity, not equality." They feel as if they should get MORE rights than men today simply because men held more rights than women in the past.

I'm with you. I will never understand the logic behind wanting to punish today's men for the mistakes of men a centuries ago.

2010-05-26T16:23:34+00:00

History defines the tone of the present. Being allowed to hold property means building wealth means independence and autonomy.

There's a reason for thinking about history and allowing it to define some of our current decisions. It's definitely additive to the discussion.

I mean, you have to decide if it's relevant to the current discussion, but I don't know what your current discussion is, so I couldn't tell you my opinion.

2010-05-26T19:40:10+00:00

They were not alive to be oppressed at that time. It has never affected them.

You can be very much affected by oppression even if you weren't the direct victim of it — the fallout from it can still haunt later generations. A simple example is: take a group of slaves and, from one day to the next, give them equal rights but no avenue of recourse for past wrongs. The chance for a child born to a former slave family to grow up in poverty will, almost certainly, be higher than for the rest of the population even though they never were directly oppressed.

Or, even simpler: if you get beaten up, you don't stop being in pain the instant the beatings stop.

Why does it matter?

For the same reason history matters for men: current attitudes, expectations and prejudices did not pop into existence over night, they were shaped by our history. The more recent, the bigger the impact (usually).

Having said that, there's the risk of giving history too much weight, as well as mistaking the impact a group of people had in the past with members of said group in the present (be it blaming modern Brits for the actions of the Empire, modern Germans for the Holocaust or what have you). And, perhaps most importantly, looking at one aspect of history in isolation and viewing it through the lens of today's values.

tl;dr: Past oppression does matter, but not all citations of past oppression make good arguments.

InfinitelyThirsting · 2010-05-26T16:37:42+00:00

I think the idea is that women are still experiencing the negative repercussions of being discriminated against even though they themselves are not experiencing the same discrimination. Similar to how affirmative action tries to correct for inequalities introduced generations ago.

kloo2yoo · 2010-05-26T16:42:01+00:00

The feminist movement was actually created out of a PR campaign by a guy named Ed BErnays in the 1930s, his uncle was Freud. Many of those "catch phrases" are empty with no context b/c they are cult slogans. Feminism was born out of a PR campaign to get women to smoke cigarettes, thus doubling the tobacco industry profits in the USA. It wasnt designed to empower women with "rights", only with more buying and purchasing power, (which is well established now, women mostly make the purchasing decisions now) The whole 70s "womens lib" movement was funded by the banks to get women into the workforce b/c at that time, americans were starting to pay a hefty amount of their income back to the central bank as income tax. So the banks doubled their profits. etc.. this goes on and on....There is a great bbc documentary about the brainwashing and mass manipulation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126#

2010-05-26T16:26:33+00:00

When logic fails they're resorting to emotional manipulation (in this case they're trying to elicit sympathy and/or guilt from those viewing the conversation which in turn should make you fear potential ridicule as a 'bad person' who 'attacks victims', etc.). This sort of behavior falls into the category of coercive persuasion...which is ironic considering the fact that the same type of person who engages in this type of behavior is also very likely to decry and actively oppose other forms of coercive persuasion (...those performed by males).

...the best you can do is call them out on it through a series of questions. ...essentially get them to admit what they're doing through logic framed to be non-judgmental and then directly state what they're doing reframed in its proper context.

samarye · 2010-05-27T03:25:11+00:00

If you want to know why those feminists think those things are relevant, you could go ask some. MensRights isn't the best place for that view.

jeff0 · 2010-05-26T16:19:57+00:00

I haven't heard that so I don't know why someone would say that. I'm concerned both about equality today AND remembering the past so we don't repeat the same mistakes.

AnnArchist · 2010-05-26T20:29:06+00:00

Its not. Its like a black guy blaming his crack addiction on slavery.

2010-05-26T19:12:01+00:00

it's because feminists tend to be liberal douche bags; The kind of people who align themselves with the left , not because of any kind of ideal or principle, they just like to remind themselves about how much more enlightened and caring they are then everyone else.

It's in part because of this that they tend to make use of constant appeals to emotion, often with a sprinkle of passive aggressiveness too, such as You just don't care about the poor women, you must be some kind of monster.

2010-05-26T22:27:11+00:00

they have to bring up the past to distract you from teh present in which women have it better than men.

nlakes · 2010-05-27T03:25:44+00:00

They're saying that because 'women' as a group, were second-class citizens for a long time. Even though society is more-or-less equal in the west now, many militant feminists want reparations (or an easy ride) for things that happened in the past that in no-way have disadvantaged the lives they lead now.

Title	Please, explain: why is this relevant?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	24
Comments	110
Date	May 26, 2010 3:53 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/c8bq1/please_explain_why_is_this_relevant/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/please-explain-why-is-this-relevant.1049363 https://theredarchive.com/post/1049363

Comments