»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Feminism
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Feminism |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Is feminism a good thing? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism I say, Yes. Of course yes. It is marvelous and back to the essence of creation. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I'm not sure about the emphasis on a particular gender. If one believes in human equality why not treat it from both genders instead of just from a feminine side? I think the emphasis on the gender does often create bias and sexism. Same thing with masculinism. |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
When man were on the top of hill and woman at the foot, would you drag down man or push up woman? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But there is no "top" here for either. We are both climbing and we should both help both of us equally. |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
Dear Sir Essorant, first have a wonderful weekend. Shall women live up the expectation of God or man? or for Atheist, man and woman shall equal, right? As for the roles in the family, social status, political right, how do you see those in the last 100 years between man and woman? Feminism ....What do you think is more today, woman who is content with herself or woman who will do anything to be prettier (under the condition of free cosmetic surgery)? why? What is the condition in man? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Yes, it freed men. . |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
John, have a wonderful weekend. Why does man want to be free from (?) ? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think we have better knowledge and thankfully laws based on better knowledge, but our better knowledge hasn't determined that we have better or even often as good social morals and choices as those that thought there was a gap or inequal roles between the genders. For example, it is far more common today for women to have a "masculine" or "macho" bluntness, even shamelessness, along with men so that not only many men often show "macho" and untender attitudes, but now women often do too. A woman that believed in tenderness of being a lady, would avoid such "macho" untenderness, but today the woman seems to feel she needs to join it futher it seems to prove she is equal. But better would it be to be thought unequal and believe that it was one's gender-role to have a softer manner, than to adopt more and more this kind of the blunt and untender manners and mentalities. |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
quote: This does contain quite bias on woman. Think about the women in Bible, one may throw all five Labels to them. But to me, those are genuine characters of women. I have never seen a masculine man or a tender, demure woman in life. |
||
|
Talyn Junior Member
since 2008-03-09
Posts 47North Carolina, USA |
Its a very good thing. Talyn |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
 Seriously? I don't think I even have the effort in me to address everything inaccurate and or offensive/annoying in this thread. To me, it should be self evident....? |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
hush, seriously, to some it may not be so obvious. Why don't you make it more so? It would doubtless enliven the conversation considerably, as I know you are not one to obfuscate your feelings or views.  Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Beg pardon, folks, but I find myself on a bit of a linguistics type of kick recently. When I look at the question, Is Feminism a good thing? I find myself bewildered by the series of questions that have been innocently compacted into one, here. Is [whose] feminism [in which context] a good thing [in which ways] [for whom]? at this point seems to me to be a better way of putting it. Leaving the question at the current low degree of nominalization leaves conflict likely though not perhaps necessary. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
By the dictionary definition, Feminism is: quote: How could that possibly be bad? Unfortunately Ess, women were once considered inferior to men and something obviously had to be done about that, hence feminism. Nowadays, (in my opinion) it's not really called "feminism" any more because equal rights is a natural thing. I mean, women aren't picketing for the right to vote or rallying to be viewed as regular citizens; equality has been achieved. Their rights should have never been suppressed to begin with, so by my estimation things are pretty square. Oh and in response to: quote: I'd have them meet somewhere in the middle.  "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
What if Sir Essorant does not want to move? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What if the way that feminism advocated for equal rights was to shoot all men? That's an extreme example, of course, but the point is that agreeing with a goal doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with an organized cause. The goals of Communism, for example, are admirable. So, how could that possible be bad? |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: this is not in the definition. Unless you want to discuses on your self-made definition. Then define it first. quote: It is bad because it is dictated by man. Where can man's free will lead? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It doesn't conflict with the definition, either, which defines only a goal and not the methods employed to reach that goal. quote: Forgive me, but that makes absolutely no sense at all to me. I'm afraid you'll have to explain why your response isn't just the non sequitur it appears to be? |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Do you find the goal of shoot all the men in Feminism? Do you find shoot in equal right? |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Communism is the end stage of social development in a theory by Karl Marx. It is said that if human being keep working and keep cleaning selfish mind(note: where did the Rand self-interest come from), one day, people would get into a society that had enough goods and people only took whatever they needed but not what they wanted and lived in a very peaceful society without war( ) and different social class. Sounded very good. But a man knows no God also does not know sins. Human being's greediness and other characters will prevent us from achieving that goal. But by ignorance or denying, how many people in communist countries have been forced by the leaders on the impossible, mirage journey? if not follow, you will be jailed or killed or excelled or despised. (I am glad that now the whole situation is better.) PS. "absolutely no sense" is a judgmental phrase. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No, and that's the whole point. How do you expect someone to reach their goal? In this case, shooting all men would do the trick. Edward copied and pasted a goal and asked "How could that possibly be bad?" It can very well be bad if you believe, as I do, that the end doesn't necessarily justify the means. Telling me someone's goal doesn't give me enough information to make a value judgment. quote: And again, how could that possibly be bad? quote: Uh? What does that have to do with communism? Communism, per se, says nothing about God or no god (it changes the meaning when you capitalize the word, so I'm unsure which you meant), and in fact, there are factions of communism specifically devoted to religion. quote: Ah, and where do YOU see that written in the goals of communism? You are, of course, criticizing the methods that "some" people used to reach what were in reality very admirable goals. Which ... was kind of my point? quote: Of course it's judgmental. That's what we do when we read someone's words. It doesn't necessarily mean it's your fault, though. Could have been mine. However, you still haven't explained how being dictated by man or a question about free will in any way answers my original question. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: no. The solution is the 38 parallel. quote: Can't pretend that you read only Edward's post. There was a starting point of this thread. quote: Mirage is beautiful...for a hotel's name but not for getting water or food. But if you are forced at gun point to go to a someone else's hallucination...this I call bad. quote: you are probably too young to remember Korea War. quote: I told you two posts ago, here again, the goal of man's free will. quote: You are legal to hold your point. It is not illegal for me to have some knowledge of it. quote: the leaders, in China, Russia, Cuba dictated that the country has to be on this way, and they have their free will to choose the rules, methods, market system, legal system and social system such as 2 year elementary educations was in charge of university and they were many, many many reticular things and rituals too. quote: I agree. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I think you’re veering off the subject entirely, Ron. Of course, I agree with you that conforming to a goal doesn’t mean you conform to the cause; but is that really what this topic is about? Not really. We’re talking about feminism and whether or not it is a good thing. The goal of feminism was essentially for women to have rights equal to their male counterparts. And the means of their movement was peaceful, not many shootings to say the least. So when I asked “How could that possibly be bad?” I was basically asking, “How can the pursuit of equality be deemed a flawed endeavor?” You’ve managed to change the debate into a “the end doesn't justify the means” argument. But that really doesn’t pertain to the actual topic; unless you want to explain why the end doesn't justify the means of feminism. Good luck with that one. quote: Once again, I think that’s a bad example. The goals of communism entailed total government control that affected everyone involved in a very negative way and the end meant living under an absolutist regime. Now weigh that against feminism (which is the topic here), by comparison it seems a bit silly to suggest any similarities. The goal of feminism has nothing to do with controlling others; in fact, feminism really only affects women and in a positive way I might add. So did the end justify the means? Well, let's see, they achieved equality in a peaceful and legal manner and now women can claim the same rights as men do. So I would say yes. I think I'm just unsure about where you're trying to go with this argument. Nice talking to you again, Ron. "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
|
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: We are, indeed. Your post, however, was about the goals of feminism, with a fairly obvious implication that lofty goals are enough to justify the cause. When you ask a rhetorical question (How can that possibly be bad?) you need to tell us it's a rhetorical question, Edward. Otherwise, people might try to answer it. quote: Source, please? I think you, too, might be confusing goals with methods. Think commune and hippies. The goal of communism has nothing to do with government at all. It's about people cooperating with people instead of competing against each other all the time. "Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production." Personally, I think the comparison between feminism and communism is an apt one, and I suspect the responses in this thread lend testimony to that. Communism clearly has gotten a really bad rap (at least in the West), not because its goals are evil, but because people don't always separate goals from methods. Sloppy thinking again. It's not quite that bad on the feminist front, but I doubt this thread would even exist if there wasn't a reason someone felt they needed to ask the question. Not everyone who believes in the feminist cause has used conservative methods to attain their goals. Like communism, feminism has gotten a bad rap in some circles, with people blaming the cause right along with the implementation. And that's a shame. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Do you want to say that all are good unless you use the bad methods to achieve it? But when you use the bad methods then the original goal will be tarnished. then what? give up or keep going? Which is more important? Woman's right or man's opinions? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Near as I can tell, these are two independent variables. There is no particularly useful method for actually measuring one against the other. Height? Weight? Volume? Density? Velocity? It simply serves as a question designed to stir rancor. In terms of communication theory it puts anyone so foolish as to attempt an answer into a "double bind." Heads I win, tails you loose. The discussion so far does not seem to offer much illumination for me. Edward Grim has offered a definition of Feminism that I thought was useful and straightforward. The marxist notion that I thought probably most to the point in a discussion of women's rights and Feminism is not actually the material about authoritarian governments, which really seems to describe not only Communist governments, but also authoritarian governments of the Right, doesn't it? The material that I thought most to the point was the marxist literature on "mystified oppression." There's material on this in both Marx himself but also, I believe in Herbert Marcuse as well. The notion is that people continue to function under Capitalist economic systems because the workers are misled about what's happening to them by "the forces of Capital." They are kept from organizing in unions and in cooperative groups to take advantage of the power inherent in the labor they sell on the market by attempts to have them buy into the Capitalist dream. In Marxist theory, this is sheer foolishness. It's the equivalent of cattle investing in stock yards. For women to go along with anything other than a Feminist agenda, following this train of reasoning, simply erodes whatever freedoms women have gained with nothing gotten in return. I must say that with both Feminism and labor, I feel this Marxist critique, which I am not articulate enough to express well, has a lot to be said for it. The assault on middle and lower class income and security over the last 40 years or so has to my mind been appalling, and the loss of freedom and potential gains for women over the same length of time has also been painful for me to see. I know others disagree. I don't think the marxists have done well for themselves. That doesn't mean that all the ideas are useless. Mystified Oppression, especially in terms of the way women in the society have been rallied against their own interests, seems to be an idea well worthy of examination. One of the problems of Marxist theory, in line with some of the complaints folks were making earlier vis-a-vis the heavy-handedness of the USSR, Red China, Cuba, et al, was the failure of "the withering-away-of-the-state." Something, in straight English, was screwed with the Marxist theory. Ultimately, the State was supposed to actually dissolve. Clearly at least a very important part of the theory was wrong. I don't think Mystified Oppression was that part, though. It's an idea worth looking at in the middle of discussions like this. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: There is not buffer area between man and woman. Woman wants some equal rights, which means that man has to give up some privileges. The issue is relevant to man so, of course, man has a saying. And because man is dominant portion in policy making and domain in culture and bearing and forward surnames, it is a hard goal for woman. Think of the situation of woman in Afghanistan. Fight, Lawsuit, escape and death is involved. Why don't they choose to yield and obey because of the name-ruin headline news? And woman in Africa...those AIDS cases. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Seoulair, The situation you are talking about is straight from Game Theory, which is a branch of strategy. It is called a Zero Sum game. At its most basic level, any amount that one gets is denied to the other. The problem is that many more cases are identified as zero sum games than actually fit the definition of zero sum games. It appears to me that you are attempting to define freedoms as a scarce resource. That is, if you as a male have the freedom to run your life as you see fit in the home and the workplace, then somebody else, the women of the world, must give up their freedoms to support these freedoms. How do you convince the women of the world that they think this is a great thing for them? You might see a bit of my poorly worked out note on Mystified Oppression in the thread above. What YOU need is the new magic ingredient, Mystified Oppression. It helps keep those people you want to have under your thumb RIGHT THERE, under your thumb, happy to be there, and trying to find room to wiggle into the same place. Get some new improved Mystified Oppression today! (Apparently brought to you by the same swell folks who're trying to bring you the New improved Clean Coal!) |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: No. This is not that simple. It is not as simple as the sign on Korea's national flag. which is even better description than the zero sum game. quote: Not deny. but to give up what he should not have at the beginning. (not right, but privileges) quote: no. Here I make myself clear one more time. It is one of the human right. quote: Why does this sound surprise for you? quote: Women talk for themselves. They don't need to be convince by anything. Their feelings have voices. quote: I have never liked the idea of labeling people's behave or social behave in poorly, unrealistically defined psychological terms. For the last 30 years, they are like food supplement and the by-product of human fitness activity. Psychology is not able to give a throughly analysis of single person's behave. Then to describe a whole society with a baseless term? I see it as a joke. Woman's equal right is a very realistic issue, esp in employment area, education area and policy-making area. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
1) There are zero sum games and non-zero sum games. Here is a two paragraph link that gives a fast and dirty explanation so we know we're talking about the same thing. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ZESUGAM.html The two tactics could be roughly broken down into competitive—zero sum—approaches and cooperative—or non-zero-sum—approaches. From my observation of your postings so far on this thread you seem to be suggesting that you see things pretty much in a zero sum way. That is, anything that women get is probably something you will have to give up. Is this correct? Am I seeing this accurately? Or am I misunderstanding the point you're trying to get across here? 2) Seoulair here quotes BobK: quote: And now Seoulair responds to the statement by BobK that he has excerpted, above: quote: Well, yes. Yes it does. I am surprised that you would think, without questioning your assumption, that you would be more worthy than more than half the other people in the world. I'm certain you're a fine fellow, but I think that if you imagine your gender entitles you to the automatic surrender of the same rights you enjoy without a protest from the women's section of the planet but also from a significant part of the men's side of the planet, you're possibly off on the wrong track. Why would you expect the women of the world to go along with that? Do you think that the ones who do now will continue to do so in the future, and that their numbers will multiply? What is the basis for such thoughts? The more women must work away from the home, the more obvious this becomes to them. Any women or men who want to weigh in on this? I don't want to be the only person who says anything here. Maybe everybody else agrees with Seoulair. Perhaps I should be surprised. Are there any women other than Lady Tom still looking at this thread? |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Yes, we read the same thing. I carefully google-ed every thing you mentioned. quote: Still, single term is not enough to describe a group's behave. As in a simple domestic situation...a mirage can't be defined as Zero-sum-game or non zero-sum game. A nuclear family of 5 children, either wife be the desperate housewife or husband give up football time to watch baby or play with children. If the husband don't want to give up TV time, then he can find other way to help if he thinks that he definitely have a share of the duty. (only if he does not think in the traditional way) quote: If you press me to give you a yes answer, then I have to say "yes", there is time to return borrowed stuff. quote: Accepted. quote: I was not talking Martian invading Venus or Vice versa. You can not neglect the traditional view and rule of man. I can's say that it has been fair in some area. quote: To make it simple, working outside and working at home make no difference on woman's right. Unless the work effort has been fairly viewed, paid, and acknowledged by boss or husband or everyone else including some women). And you are very smart. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
quote: It wasn't a rhetorical question, Ron. The whole point of this discussion was to answer, "Is feminism a good thing?" I responded to that with another question, one I thought to be legitimate. Questioning what's wrong with something is usually a good way to uncover whether or not it has good qualities, at least in my mind. quote: Source? You need a source to know the damaging effects of Communism in a government? Do you know who Stalin was, Ron? quote: Yeah, I think I know what communism is, Ron. I'm not as witless as you may think. I wasn't referring to the ideology of Communism but rather the type of government. And I really think it's a long shot to say government has nothing to do with it. quote: I agree. Communism as an ideology isn't particularly wrong, it's pretty fantastic and unrealistic, but Communism when utilized by a government is a completely different matter. I can't think of one example where Communism was a positive lasting force in a government. I just can't find anything good about giving a government total control. I love how these discussions never stick to the actual topic. You bring up women's rights and somehow the motives of Karl Marx becomes the focus, hahaha. Have a good day, Ron. "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm a bit vague on this, Ed. Repression is apparently welcome wherever it shows its friendly face. Right or left both seem to keep a spare bedroom fitted out in case repression wants to call and needs someplace to stay. It's a generous houseguest and brings gifts for those in power, whoever they might be. There are folks in Russia who miss the good old days when Stalin kept a firm hand on things. I knew a lady when I was growing up in Ohio who kept telling me what a nice, firm, generous and safe man Hitler really was. I'm still steamed at the Political Science professor who was nice enough to tell me that historically totalitarian governments had always emerged out of Democracies. He pointed out the Kerinsky government in Russia and the Weimar Republic in Germany. I figured out the business around the French Revolution myself. Feminism, though? Where are the women in this thread if we're actually talking about Feminism? Or are we talking about something else, causing the women to migrate elsewhere? Where is the actual cross-gender discussion? |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Doesn't surprise me. Where they got milk where they call motherhood. About this thread: Essorant started it with a kind of bias. Ron led it to side way, and Bob K brought in social psychology. where it should go? Mr. Grim? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
quote: Well Bob, just going on Hush's reaction alone: quote: I honestly think the female members might be offended by the question. I imagine it would be the same thing as asking if the civil rights movement is a good thing. I very much doubt that the African American members would be too willing to debate such a ridiculous question. Just my two cents... "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ed, quote: Women were perhaps considered inferior at doing what men were usually doing, but only because they were considered superior at doing what women were. That is, maintaining their own womanly traditions, something they are hardly allowed to do today, when people always treat them as if they need to equal whatever men are doing. I don't think women argued and regretted that most of their mothers were not politicians and warriors instead of good homemakers. Much more pleasant is the thought that they probably took pride in what their mothers did and took pride in carrying on the womanly tradition with strength, instead of trying to parallel whatever men were doing. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, Men speculating about the way women thought in the good old days when women weren't politicians has always seemed a difficult position. No matter how accurate the speculations may be, they always sound somewhat self-serving. And when you look at some of the 18th Century literature—Mary Wollstonecraft come to mind—the feminist yearnings sound to my ear somewhat different than you portray them. I suspect many of us create the ancestors we wish we'd had, one way or another, near term or long; and for that matter for either good or ill. It used to be in axiomatic in psychoanalytic psychotherapy that if the patient wanted to focus on the past, you should focus on the here-and-now, and that if the patient was preoccupied with the here-and-now you should try to focus on the past. The point was that the patient constructed same life experience using either material to support the same conclusions, and you should go with where the hidden affect was. It didn't mean that the logic from either the past or the present justified the conclusions or the life that was built on them, right? Once again, I miss the active presence of women to check these speculations. I feel half the conversation is absent. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Do you really think feminism is about identical roles, Essorant? I rather thought it was about identical rights. Which, of course, includes the right to choose our own role. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob, quote: Not necessarily. Why would such a strong tradition among women come about, if women themselves didn't support and believe in what they were doing? Why is it so hard to imagine that women actually took pride in their own traditions? And why should they not still take pride in what women did and continue to do when it is virtuous? My problem is when people treat the past as if women were somehow imprisoned by masculine hands into not being politicians, tyrants, and warriors. The reason women were less involved in what men were doing is simply because they were more involved in what women were doing. Ron, quote: Not always. But there is much more than a dictionary definition to feminism. There are many extremisms, and bad mentalities that are formed in some people's manners. I wasn't trying to project what I was saying as all "feminism", but I do believe it is an image and attitude that often comes along with certain kinds of feminism today. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There are extremisms and bad mentalities formed for just about everything, Ess, from religion to democracy to marriage. Those, however, as already discussed, reflect the methods that people use, not the goals they are pursuing. And I'm sorry, but like Bob, I'm not quite willing to accept that YOU know the reasons women of the past accepted the roles they accepted, nor am I willing to believe that all or even a significant majority wanted what you apparently think they wanted. I will, however, give you this: I agree there was and is nothing wrong with the more traditional female role. But only so long as it's a choice and not an assumption. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Who wants to define traditional female role? quote: choice....whose choice? man's? woman's? in-law's? or by culture or religion? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, I agree. But I also believe that when women try to be exactly the same as men (as far as their roles go, particularly in the family) leads to trouble. I think that there is a maternal nature that makes the woman primarily responsible for rearing her children, and not placing her career first. That doesn't mean that husbands don't have an important role. (though sadly many of them don't practice it) It does mean that when society accepts that both parents work full time, and wives are not primarily dedicated to personally rearing children first and foremost (though no one is saying a woman should never work outside the home, my own wife is also a Registered Nurse who works part time) , we will reap the bad results. And I believe we have begun to see this bad outcome since this social experiment of the 60s - 70s. There are of course always exceptions to the rule (sometimes mothers MUST work full time), but that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about a widespread disregarding of the propriety of motherhood being a woman's first vocation if she happens to be one. I am only opposed to feminism when it attempts to obscure the complimentary uniqueness of men and women, denying their differences. And yes, I'm aware that such "differences" can be used to justify some pretty poor things. But I think that the denial of such differences is just as risky as exploiting them. Otherwise I think that many of the results of feminism have been good and healthy. And please, don't think I'm here to unduly criticize women. I'm actually slow to speak on this since I would much rather focus on the forsaken responsibilities of many husbands and fathers, who can best be described as "absentee" even while present in their own homes. Stephen |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
Traditional female role of my dream 12am-5am a night of good sleep and tending crying baby and other in-law's requirement. 5-6am prepare breakfast, husband' tie, suits, polish shoes, suitcase, warm up cars, or led out the horse. 6-7am tending family breakfast,hug/kiss goodbye to everyone. 7-8am bedroom clean time and ventilation time 8-8:30am her breakfast and beauty time. 8:30--11:30am house clean, shopping, Garden,domestic animals and in-law's. 11:30-12:30am cook lunch and folding laundry 12:30-2:30am knitting, sewing, prepare snack for children, domestic animals, 2:30-5:00pm children's homework, sports and handling endless siblings fighting and all mischievous, spilled milk, painted wall, broken glass and bleeding cuts and a load of dirty clothes. 5-8:00pm cooking dinner, setting up the table serve dinner, clean table, wash dishes and vacuum the floor and clean up the kitchen. Feed and clean domestic animals and plus listen to HB's complaining about work.boss/colleagues and comfort him. Give a after-dinner massage while praising him. 8-9pm pre-bed reading stories to children. 9-9:30pm children-to bed. 9:-11pm doing laundries and tenderly ask HB to lower TV volume X10 11:12am folding laundry and pray for the whole family. I will be happy in such a well served life. And Ron as you wish, they have no time for poem or PIP. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It seems to work best, I think, when each person defines their own role. quote: Uh? That it's a personal choice is pretty much implied by the language? quote: I'll agree completely, Stephen, if you'll change the phrase "wives are" to "someone is." Like you, I believe that raising a child, at least for the first five years, is a full-time job. I don't think it necessarily has to be the woman and, if feminism had its way, the socio-economic pressure wouldn't continue to privilege one gender over the other. If you and your wife switched roles, would your combined income remain the same? The fact that men typically make more than women in exactly the same job is a definite factor in determining who stays home the most, I think. BTW, when my last child was born I spent a full year playing the full-time-daddy role. Maternal nature, Stephen? If more men tried it, I suspect we'd start calling it human nature. It was probably one of the greatest experiences of my life. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I agree Ron. But the good intention of the archer means little when his arrows start being shot in men's direction. When that happens, it is hard to keep the topic on the "good goals" of the archer instead of equipping oneself with a defense against the arrows! |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Woman is not isolated living in desert. and If there are choices there are options. And those options is based on practical matters which can be proper or not. quote: I take this as you agree that woman chooses your role for you in this world. quote: Wrong. It is a Nanny's full time's job. Mother does much more beyond your "full time" concept. quote: see, how you want to define woman's role. quote: You did noticed the unfairness. quote: I'll print this down in case you revise it later. ( then I shall say, you lied.) quote: Penguin does this though. And I am glad that Stethen was not forced to quote Proverb 31. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2031:10-30&version=31; |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[ quote: There is no room for a decent answer here; nor can I write prose well enough to keep people's attention focused for that length of time. I will try a short answer, knowing even I will be dissatisfied. 1) You make an assumption when you say that it is "a strong tradition among women." The assumption is that it is a tradition originated by women, maintained by women, and happily carried into the future by women AND ONLY WOMEN. Not true. The traditions were cultural and cross-gendered. I cannot speak to the utility of such tradition while humans were strictly hunter-gatherers and lived in small somewhat genetically isolated bands. It does seem that the closer societies seem to be to that situation, the more strictly they maintain such conventions. There may be reasons for this. If anybody knows, please fill me in. However, after people settled down in cities, one of the first things that show up in written records are attempt to come up with contraceptive formulas. I've seen examples going back to Egypt, and they keep pace with the growth of civilization. Women, pretty much from the beginning of recorded history, have sought control over their reproductive lives, to limit the role of mothering to times and partners of their choice. The customs in these societies were at odds with these wishes. We know mostly about people who were written about. But daughters seem to have been commodities. Mothers probably cooperated in making these marriages, though, truthfully, I don't know for sure. In most modern arranged marriages they seem to. You can call this taking pride in a tradition or Stockholm Syndrome or—my current favorite—Mystified Oppression. 2) quote: Circumcision in some cultures is still occasion for a blow-out party. Geza Roheim, the Hungarian psychoanalytically-trained anthropologist, filmed a rite of sub-incision, a male rite of passage for one group of bushmen in Australia that was a matter of intense pride for those who took part in the ritual. It has been used to show college student volunteers undergoing aversion-training. Most can't sit through it. The bushmen though this the height of virtue. So do the women today in Egypt who perform female circumcision. Many of them have had the ritual performed on them in their time. (I put in here another plug for the notion of Mystified Oppression.) It is, in other words, not at all difficult to imagine the women taking pride in their traditions. Nor is it difficult for me to believe they could believe their traditions to be virtuous. Nor is it difficult to believe that some of them may actually be virtuous. Now, if only we could come to some stable understanding of virtue. 3) quote: Alas for all of us, not only by male hands. It's always so much easier when there's a convenient baddie to blame. Men are as caught up in the system here as are women. 4) quote: The word "simply" drags a lot of weight here. If a woman decided not to do a lot of the things that women were doing—raise kids, do her own housework, care for family—she would have difficulty. It would be the exceptional woman indeed who might venture into the world of male enterprise and make her own money and create a life that would be as satisfactory as that of a man. She wouldn't be able to vote, own her own property or make the majority of her own legally binding decisions. In some countries she could be married against her will in a legally binding ceremony and all her assets could be taken over by the new "husband." In short, Essorant, there is actually plenty to be upset about, should upset be your thing. My opinion is that it's pretty tough being straightforward, kind and real with each other in the here and now. In England, I was surprised and happy to find they don't celebrate Mothers' Day, but instead a "Mothering Day." Most of the glory still goes to good old Mom, of course, but you get to understand that mothering is a human function and that anybody can help out anyone with a little decency at any time. And yes, men and women are built different, not just visibly, but in the head as well. I was around through that there's no difference between men and women routine in the sixties and seventies, and boy do lots of sociologists feels a little bit funny now. But I wouldn't give up any of it. I got to talk to a lot of people, men and women both, about who they thought they were and what their gender had to do with it, and I don't think things are anywhere near as open and frank now as they were then. I feel really unsettled when I see anything wearing an Answer costume walking around. I start wondering whose Masked Ball I'm attending, and what I'm going to have to deal with at midnight. But maybe that's just me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: I'm not at all trying to belittle your experience as a stay-at-home Dad, or anyone else's that doesn't fit traditional ideas about gender roles. I just happen to think there's more to the traditional gender roles than just tradition. I think, generally speaking, that women are wired (physically and psychologically) in such a way that makes them the primary caregiver of children among parents. It's no string of evolutionary accidents that women happen to give childbirth, breastfeed, and are endowed with more estrogen and less testosterone. Likewise I think men are "wired" in such a way that makes the role of provider and protector more suitable for them. Unlike some, I hold no suspicion that this tendency is just some conditioned bias due to a long history of patriarchal domination. Now having stated what I believe to be a fundamental telos concerning gender ... I will add that this doesn't rule out or vilify exceptions. The single mother who is forced to fill in for an absentee Father (whether present in the home or not) is a remarkable and noble exception to the rule. Likewise a Father who is occupied mainly at home and rears the children while the wife works (due to financial necessity perhaps) is honorable. But exceptions do not eradicate rules. And so, I don't think the successes of any instances involving a switch of traditional gender roles, should imply that we are to chalk the old views up to mere bias, and render gender as superfluous in society or the home. There is a differentiation involved with "Mom" and "Dad". They are not simply two of a kind. They are unique and wonderfully specified, not only as individuals, but as men and women. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-12-2008 11:15 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Lucky dog! |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
? Lucky Dog---this is name calling. I would use lucky bear.--the grizzly kind. Can you imagine what a man would do to his child when his faith was on ""Don't handicap your children by making their lives easy." ? I can't. Probably the child cooked his first year dinners for his father. [This message has been edited by Seoulair (04-13-2008 05:04 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Actually, Stephen, the exceptions do eradicate the rules. Unless you really intend to make rules that don't (and shouldn't) apply to everyone equally? Basically, you're saying that most people are right-handed, most men are heterosexual, and most women are nurturing. Yet, people still use their left hands, men apparently experiment with homosexuality, and women neglect their children. Are you sure you're describing rules? Ever do any bird watching, Stephen? Male hummingbirds perform one and only one function in raising a family. And, uh, they'll perform that sole function with just as many females as they can. Barn swallows, on the other hand, mate for life and the male does just about everything the female does, from sitting on the eggs to feeding the voracious nestlings when they hatch. Both hummers and swallows are hard wired, as you say, with genetic predispositions. You certainly won't find me arguing against a role for genetics. What you will find me arguing, however, is "the" role for genetics. I think humans are barn swallows, not hummingbirds. I will readily grant you the differences between men and women. I just don't think either you or I, or anyone else, really knows which of those differences are shaped by genetics and which are shaped by society. I would be an utter fool, I think, to claim that genetics plays no part in those differences. Are you, perhaps, suggesting that society has played no part in those differences? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Think about how some cultures/traditions are predominated by certain races and not others. "Chinese" (the culture) is predominated by "Chinese" (the physical race). "Canadian" however, is not the same. "Canadian" (the culture) is not predominated by "Canadian" (a physical race). Canadian is only a cultural "race" so to speak, not a physical race. We are predominately "Canadians" because of our our culture , not because we are also some kind of physical "Canadian". But may we say the same for "Chinese"? By all means, a white man may be wellversed in Chinese and perhaps lived in China all his life, but, who thinks of white men when they hear "Chinese", in any sense? And who won't respect when Chinese people are the only ones working at a Chinese restaurant? Is this racism? I don't believe so. It may be called racial, but not racism in this respect alone. And it should be able to be respected, not rejected just because it involves one race more than another. By no means should other "races" whether physical or cultural, stand back and think "We should've been equally part of the Chinese culture!". It is mistaken if we do and it doesn't make sense. The exact same thing happened with gender. Every specially different group of people has some special traditions in which they predominated in, and the gender-groups are no exception. There are traditions that men predominated in and there are traditions that women predominated in. There is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong with women doing something more than men, or men doing something more than women. And women shouldn't be ashamed for doing less politics than men, nor men for doing less mothering than women. It is like one country trying to say it should be equally part of another country's traditions, that is how strong the "borders" were set between men and women. The borders may have changed and the countries called "men" and "women" may have become more merrged and even, but there are still borders, and we should be able to respect them, without always pretending these two landscapes should be equally mountainous or equally full of lakes, etc to match one exactly with the other! It doesn't make sense. Respect and be proud of the good traditions that are within your own "borders" They don't need to be the same as every other "countries"! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
All I can do, Ess, is sit here and shake my head. For that to make any sense at all, you're going to have to explain to me from which part of your Chinese culture you intend to exclude me? And I'll warn you ahead of time: Try to take away my rice and you're going to have a real fight on your hands. When it comes to what I can and cannot do, sorry, but I'm not going to respect any borders imposed from without. You shouldn't either. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, You stretch your use of analogy here beyond my poor ability to follow. I'm not particularly certain that the concept of "race" is currently accepted anthropology, for example. You restate your belief that men have one set of roles and women another; and that there is no problem with each gender taking pride and pleasure in doing what its gender seems to specialize in, and in doing it well. I think your position here needs to be addressed. I believe the pride and pleasure that one takes in doing "a man thing" or "a woman thing" well—say multitasking for a women or toughing something out for a man—is not of prime importance. You apparently think it is. If everything were a matter of simple division of what everyone thought was best for everybody, then, historically women would have had a well established right to own property, to vote, and to make their own decision as to whom they were to marry. Once married, historically their rights would not have devolved upon their husbands, their husbands would not have had the right to beat them either on whim or to "keep them in line." Nor would legislation have been necessary to limit the size of the stick that a husband could use to do so. Nor would it have been possible as late as the 19th century in some areas of the British Isles, for women to be kidnapped and married by force, against their will, in a legally binding marriage. (Wilkie Collins used this particular piece of the Scottish law to advantage in a few of his novels, but it is certainly more than fiction. Those of you who haven't read Collins, especially women—my wife tells me—are in for a serious treat.) "Husbands" who did so would have had no access to the estates of their "wives." Should the situation have been as genial as you present it, none of these circumstances would have been possible. Women would have had access to work to enable them to earn money outside the home; birth control would have been simple and legal, and divorce would have been much easier to get, to keep women from being trapped in dangerous situations. The division of roles that you portray as being a division between equals with more or less equal rights and responsibilities on either side was at best a polite fiction maintained only with stern legal sanctions pointed almost completely in one direction. . . The full force and majesty of the law was directed against the women. I imagine there will be counter-examples. There are in almost every case. In this case, however, I believe that the women seriously get the short and soiled end of the stick. And which of these gains that women have made, slowly and incompletely over the past 200 years, would any fair-minded person wish to give back? And what would the results be of doing so? That women or men should take pride and pleasure in what they do seems a very good thing. That they should be limited to doing only what the other gender believes are the proper things for them to be doing: That seems an abomination, a substitution of power for joy. [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-13-2008 07:06 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Head... hurts.... so... badly.... What do I find annoying about this thread? Well, since it didn't go away, let me peruse the past few pages and point a few things out. Essorant: "My problem is when people treat the past as if women were somehow imprisoned by masculine hands into not being politicians, tyrants, and warriors. The reason women were less involved in what men were doing is simply because they were more involved in what women were doing." Apparently it's not good enough to let asinine comments stand on their own, so I'll explain. You see, as Ed rightly observed... it's self explanatory why this comment is ridiculous... if you're a woman. Women were, and still are, "imprisoned by masculine hands" and women who defy that imprisonment were, and still are, punished. What country was it that sentenced the unwed mother to death by stoning? Foolish woman- she should have remembered her womanly manners and happily entered into a marriage arranged for her by her father. Stephen: "But I also believe that when women try to be exactly the same as men (as far as their roles go, particularly in the family) leads to trouble. I think that there is a maternal nature that makes the woman primarily responsible for rearing her children, and not placing her career first. That doesn't mean that husbands don't have an important role. (though sadly many of them don't practice it) It does mean that when society accepts that both parents work full time, and wives are not primarily dedicated to personally rearing children first and foremost (though no one is saying a woman should never work outside the home, my own wife is also a Registered Nurse who works part time) , we will reap the bad results. And I believe we have begun to see this bad outcome since this social experiment of the 60s - 70s." Stephen, you know I love ya, I really do... but this just makes me so irritated. The "traditional" family with the "maternal" mother home most or all of the time is not the only succesful model, and you're smart enough to know that. Furthermore, I doknow people who think women should never work outside the home. And, back to the roots of feminism... you have the right to practice your own idea of family... but how dare you tell me that mine will breed "bad outcomes"? I am a product of a 60's child who chose an unconventional path, and I am just fine thank you. "The single mother who is forced to fill in for an absentee Father (whether present in the home or not) is a remarkable and noble exception to the rule." What about the single mother who chooses to do so herself? Any less noble Stephan? Ron: "I will readily grant you the differences between men and women. I just don't think either you or I, or anyone else, really knows which of those differences are shaped by genetics and which are shaped by society. I would be an utter fool, I think, to claim that genetics plays no part in those differences. Are you, perhaps, suggesting that society has played no part in those differences?" You're so smart. When I reply in annoyance, Ron replies with reason... Ess: "Think about how some cultures/traditions are predominated by certain races and not others. "Chinese" (the culture) is predominated by "Chinese" (the physical race). "Canadian" however, is not the same. "Canadian" (the culture) is not predominated by "Canadian" (a physical race). Canadian is only a cultural "race" so to speak, not a physical race. We are predominately "Canadians" because of our our culture , not because we are also some kind of physical "Canadian"." So, can't Chinese people be Canadians? Your analogy... once again... hurts my head. First of all, why you feel it's necessary to divide people by physical races, I'll never know... perhaps you think that since men and women should behave and remain in their roles, black people should keep shuckin and jivin, saying "yes suh" like their ancestors? Just as you apparently think women loved churining butter and mending socks? Just as men probably love working crazy overtime hours so their wives can be stay-at-home moms? And the Chinese should keep to their traditions, and everyone should just stay separate but equal? But since you did bring race up... there's a very good reason that Americans and Canadians are not easily distinguishable by our race... both a beautiful and horrifying reason... after our european ancestors came and decimated the native populations that now live on sad little parcels we call reservations... after the Spanish raped enough native women to create the race we call Hispanic now, and after we imported enough Africans to grow our crops, after the Chinese built the railroads and after the Japanese suffered in American internment camps... we are starting, trying to evolve, and while some traditionalists here seem to think that change is bad, and scary, and we should all just mind our manners and remain quiet and virtuous, despite all that, instead of exploiting each other's differences in order to denigrate the other and take their human rights away... we are celebrating differences and allowing different people to all have access to the same choices men have had, and the same choices whites have had, in our western society for centuries. And how anybody can think that's a bad thing I'll never understand. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
sir Essorant, all you wanted to express, by the example of Chinese or the country boarder was that you had your own definition of woman and man and you had your firmed opinion on what they were good at. (by using the word: predominance) Do you want to tell your concept of woman and man? Man..masculine What is masculine? Woman...demure What is demure? What is man good at what is woman good at? Woman and man make up the human society and contribute equal importance to the development and "civilization" of this species. But do woman get equal respect? Do woman get equal chances to do bi-gender job? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Amy: quote: Amy, you know I love ya right back. And you also know that I already knew that my expressed view would probably rub somebody the wrong way. Not my intention, however, to irritate.quote: I guess that would depend upon your definition of "success". I do know it has helped to produce more of the both-parents-working situations, with excessive day care, not enough time together, and a generally arid home situation. quote: Then you would have to argue that point with them. For that is not my position. Mine is rather that wives and mothers shouldn't place career and ideas of personal fulfillment before the vocation of being a homemaker. This does not rule out working outside the home, or even a career, though it does make it secondary. quote: All I'm telling you Amy is that an agenda which intentionally portrayed the homemaker as a second-rate, oppressive, and stifling enterprise, has not yielded the best outcome for families as a whole. It's nothing personal. quote: I think choosing single motherhood (or Fatherhood), beforehand, and not merely as a response to a failed relationship, is essentially selfish. You asked. Ron: quote: Not at all. I just think that society can accept and encourage outlooks that are either contrary or complementary to nature. To use an older idea, one view may be more in "harmony" with the telos of nature than another. And I think that this is one of those instances. An example of the kind of approach I'm talking about, (interestingly enough, coming up in my lay study of Theology) is when feminist theologians tried to argue that the maleness of Christ was a "contingent element of his historical reality, not an essential aspect of his identity". When Gender is trivialized in such a way, I feel that an imabalance has occured, perhaps out of offense from sexist abuse in the past. And this kind of imbalance is occurring not only in Theology, but in every area of life. That's not to say that this kind of imbalance defines Feminism, which has yielded many good changes. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
excuse: Double post. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Approximately 50,000 years of humanity on the earth in more or less its current biological form and all but 6-7,000 years of this has been spent in the form of hunter-gatherers. Call it 10,000 years, if you want. Best evidence we have at this point, as I understand it, is that hunter-gatherers were not families as we know them today: Mom, Dad, two kids or more. They were tribal structures with aunts, uncles, cousins and others still in one wandering group structure. 50 to 100 people in a band perhaps, depending on what the environment could support. I hate it when people think that recent adaptations are the way things always were. Looking at the way our current model of family seems to be working, I can't say it's very successful or stable; and the folks who seem to think it is seem to be making reference to biblical models which were not even remotely nuclear families—multiple wives, concubines, marriage obligations that include forced marriage of a widow to her husband's brother and so on would cause many of these biblical marriages today to have members arrested for incest or child abuse or both. Four fifths of of human history as hunter-gatherers, who did not have nuclear families. THAT is by far the most successful adaptation. Our current little experiment may work out or not. I hope so, but experiment it is by historical standards. And the early data isn't looking so hot. [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-14-2008 10:08 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, Is all that to say that there is no standard seen in all this variety? From a Biblical perspective, polygamy was a later innovation, that didn't lead to stability. And though it was not outright forbidden, there was a later reform and return to committed monogamy in the teachings of Jesus. So while you are correct to point out that family structure wasn't homogenous, even in the bible (written in a time frame which spans about 1500 years), that doesn't mean that such practices (including gender roles) were simply up for grabs. There is still a rebellion of nature that occurs when you try and stretch things too far. Even if your speculation about hunter-gatherers happens to be correct (though to say that definitive information about their practices is sparse would be an understatement), I'll wager that there were still committed bonds within the group, and therefore gender roles would have had to be considered. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Stephanos, But what was the nature of the commitments in these relationships? It's reasonable to make assumptions that the way our ancestors thought and felt and acted is the same way the we do now; but Joan of Arc may have gotten her Ford serviced at the DEALER because dealers were the only folks selling warrantees at the time. It simply made more sense. We may know better now; but that's now. In some families, Egyptian Royal Families, for example, incest wasn't all yucky the way it is today; it was the way things were supposed to be. In royal families up till today, it's not considered a good idea to marry outside a fairly limited genetic range of royal families. Want to bet on how intermarried that group of folks is? Monogamy the way we practice it (more or less) in the west is not necessarily the gold standard of marriage practices (though, I confess, it works out that way for me). Everybody in the Islamic world doesn't belong to extended families, but The Prophet allows for up to four wives if economics permit, and four concubines as well. Not widely practiced any more, but certainly allowed. Chinese and Japanese marriage customs have altered only within the last hundred years or so—perhaps the last hundred and fifty. We do a lot of talking about the wonders of monogamy but must ignore a lot of its difficulties as well. As a system, it's one that seems to be held together as much by force and violence as by love and affection. We are talking about feminism because the current system really doesn't work all that well for a great number of the people involved in it. You won't find me saying that makes it bad. Not by itself. You will find me saying that we need to hear people's difficulties with anything they want to talk about, including gender problems and marriage issues. It's through deeper and more compassionate listening that understanding emerges. About gender and marriage issues, about whatever. There's no reason, after all, that Joan of Arc, or even Jesus, needs to buy a marriage at the same Ford dealer I bought mine. My wife may be the sole love of my life, but Joan and Jesus can pass the savings on to you. A little attempt at religious humor, there. You see, Jesus was this savior... and Joan, she was this Oddball french woman who was ... never mind. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Why must difficulties be ignored? Let's talk about em (if that were the subject of the thread I suspect we would be doing just that) I never suggested that the best way meant the easiest way. But could you describe to me how monogamy in our culture is "held together by force and violence"? It seems to me that a system involving polygamy and concubinage would fit that description better. Case in point, the recent scandals of a mormon cult which clearly has involved oppression. Our biggest problem with monogamous marriage is being able to love each other and stay together, not of being forced by arms to stay together. And if we're having trouble with staying with one wife, imagine what a harem might be like. quote: Perhaps, but I feel that I'm speaking of the excesses of feminism which denies the sanctity of gender and the purposes behind it. I can appreciate a desire for change, a critique of methods, exceptional cases, and a focus on personal freedom. But the particular ideology I'm speaking of has gone well into extremism. You will of course point out that there are reasons for this, and that the "system" isn't perfect. That's well and good. But when traditional views are eschewed wholesale, you have to ask when it is appropriate to talk about whether the fault lies in the traditional outlook, or in the feminist reaction to it. It is doubtless some of both. quote: Am I somehow limiting what people talk about? And are you inferring that a firm stance for traditional views of gender, marriage, or whatever, necessitates a lack of compassion? I've got friends whose marriage is on the rocks. My wife and I have both heard them out, on both sides, and have offered nothing but support. The wife has been edging toward adultery, and the husband has issues as well that he seems to be skirting. Both will tell you that their approach is justified. Is the problem with monogamous marriage itself, or is it a deeper moral / spiritual problem? My point in bringing this up is not to shame them (this is confidential and I know that they will never frequent this forum), or to parade their problems, but to suggest that the excesses of feminism (like the excesses of chauvinism) have to do with similar self issues, not necessarily problems inherent in traditional views. And I know at this point you will try to state the historical minority of monogamy, and therefore cast doubt on whether there is any best "way". But on that point we'll just have to disagree. The original practice and prescription for humanity (in the book of Genesis) was committed monogamy, and polygamy only a later innovation. And therefore a return to monogamy in history represents a restoration or reform. Whether we are able to fully appreciate or practice such a standard is another question. (I know I have my problems with it, and yet difficulty should never tempt me to doubt whether marriage itself is divinely ordained) At least I've raised the question of whether the problems lie with us, or with the institution itself. And you can extend the same question to the feminist critique of gender roles. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The point I tried to make earlier was simply that a particular group or kind of people predominating isn't a problem. (And I pointed out the same thing about religions in different thread). I used Chinese culture to tell that the predominance of the Chinese race in Chinese culture doesn't make the culture better or worse. White people were never parrticipants or rulers in China and Chinese culture in anyway as much as the Chinese race. Even if this were due to racism, the predominance of a race would still not be the problem. The racism would be. No one should fault Chinese culture for being ruled far more by racially chinese people, nor should people criticize a tradition for being ruled more by men than women. A faulty tradition was never faulty because it lacked white men or lacked women (or any other race/kind/group of people) but it was faulty because it lacked wisdom and helpfulness. The predominance of men in politics was never the problem in politics. But the predominance of unwisdom often was and often still is. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-16-2008 03:23 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, I am sure you have slipped a response to my post number 55 in there someplace, which explained I didn't understand your analogies with the Chinese. I couldn't find it. You shouldn't have to, of course. Except, as I said, it's not at all clear race is a currently widely accepted topic in physical anthropology. And that it seems that historically women have been confined by legal measures controlled by men to certain roles and activities and the division hasn't been terribly voluntary at all. One has a difficult time talking about the utter respect he has for somebody he refuses to allow to vote or own property or keep any money she earns for herself, I would say. Just to throw myself a change-up about this business, as I am wont on occasion to do, let me try another perspective: I'm a guy too, Essorant. I'd be thrilled to be off the hook not so much for the behavior of my ancestors, but for the little ways in which I find myself willing to go along with it. Some of these thing, and I'm not sure I can even name them, to tell you the truth, just seem to come right along with me. Here's one. I have a high tolerance for mess. My wife does not. Instead of having the ongoing courage to fight with her for the presence of mess in our home, I give lip-service to her wish for the decline of the dust bunny population. I know darn well that I will never be motivated to kill dust bunnies. I don't care about them, but the net effect is that I have turned over something to my wife. I'd be happy to try to hire somebody or to live with a little more dirt, but this runs awry of another piece of programming. Thoughts? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- I guess at the end of the day it does all boil down to personal freedom. It doesn't bother me that some people choose to be stay-at-home moms and go to church every Sunday, so why should it bother you if some people decide to be working moms and utilize things like day-care? You mention day-care like we should instantly recognize it as a bad thing, but why? It gives toddlers and pre-schoolers a chance to interact with other children. I never had any problems from having gone to day-care. So, I think what a lot of feminism strives for is equality, and live-and-let-live. Sometimes that does mean some changes- like women making the same amount as men so that they can support a child, affordable and available day-care, things like that. I don't see how that's a bad thing. And if some poeple don't accept your lifestyle, Stephen, I don't see how that's a bad thing eiter so long as they don't infringe on your right to live how you want. The problem is that there have been historical infringements on how women want to live for... as long as history has been recorded. Ess.... I still don't get it. So we shouldn't criticise things like the Chinese's oppression of Tibet, or the cultural value placed on male babies, which leads to high rates of femal infaticide in China? Just let the Chinese be Chinese? Leave it alone? I'm not getting your analogy, and like Bob, I still don't see what it has to do with feminism? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: It doesn't if that's what they must do. It does bother me when there's not even a pause in saying that full time daycare is just as good as a parent, or to view single motherhood as an equal ideal to having a mother and father. quote: And that's where feminism has been a good thing. But there is such a thing as overcorrection, especially in the area of gender roles. Women on the frontline just for the sake of "equality" illustrates my point. I'm not even talking about laws, I'm talking about what is the right way to think about these issues. Half the battle of feminism has not been to change laws or "force", but to change minds. And I'm simply saying that the pendulum has swung too far, and there has been a loss of balance. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote:And how much pause, Stephen, did you give to the thought that it would be far better if both parents stayed home full-time to devote themselves to their children? How much pause did you give to the thought that grandparents, living directly in the home, would be better than two inexperienced parents doing it alone? Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they can and will do it the "right way." There's always going to be ideas of what is better. And that's fine as long no one dictates their own choices on anyone else. Life is always going to be a series of compromises, and the ones you choose likely won't be the ones I choose. quote: The responses in this thread, Stephen, including your own attitude toward "right" and "wrong" gender roles, would suggest to me the pendulum hasn't swung near far enough yet. There's clearly a whole lot of minds out there waiting to be changed. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Very clear. But the people in that particular group think that there are problems. then, shall they handle them or not? Or wait for man to handle it? What if they all think that everyone should be content with "what" they have and "who" they are? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
One of the things about hunter-gatherers is that kids could be looked after the rest of the group while either or both parents were busy doing things essential for the tribe. Grandparents or cousins were an important part of the extended acre structure. The group was intimate and small enough so that the child felt comfortable being cared for by almost any other person in the group. No one in the sixties that I remember actually spoke about hunter-gatherers or even very much about anthropology, but really a lot of the basic thinking felt tribal.. Dear Hush, you seem to have an interesting and level head on your shoulders. A pleasure to hear your voice here. And Ron, you are a constant surprise. I seem to be finding out new and fascinating things about everybody the longer we keep talking. Including here, Essorant and Stephanos. Stephanos, I don't know how to say this with the respect that you deserve, but the presence of monogamy in the first book of the Bible only proves it is the original form of marriage to a very limited number of folks. I am not among their number, nor are most of the people I know. I have been reading some interesting stuff on the nature of revelation in early Greek culture which I think might interest you and which we should talk about elsewhere, but that's a special case. I don't think that most reasoning would allow that here. I don't think you can ask the rest of us to take that leap with you without what is probably a conversion experience first. For those of us who feel that is not necessary, you will have to find another way to make your point, I'm afraid. For those of us who agree with you already, you will have wasted your breath in the first place by making it at all. quote: I am not familiar with this as a Feminist agenda. I have heard right wing distortions of Feminist thinking characterize it in this fashion. In fact, I can't say that I recall any Feminists characterize their thinking as "an agenda" at all. Feminists who talk about women who are mothers and home-makers talk about the tradition choice as a decent honest and honorable one, near as I recall. Their objections to the role is when it is forced upon women and they have no choice but to accept it. I have heard nothing but decent things and praise for those who have chosen to live that role. A guy with the sophistication to look at theology with the depth and insight that you have certainly has the understanding to understand the difference. Being forced to do something without a choice, even something decent such as being a doctor, a mother or a lawyer may not be so hot. Being forced to be a mother against your will, in fact, is most places these days, illegal. Though if you look at marriage law you will notice that it has not always been so, and that marriages could be forced without consent as late as the 19th century. The sexual consequences would have been as predicted. That is also part of the good old traditional marriage. The "agenda" of the Feminists is that the role be chosen and not forced. Is there something about this "agenda" that you would actually quarrel with? As you can see from the above, I start to get a bit upset when folks that I respect suggest that Feminists don't respect mothers or homemakers when the role is one that is freely chosen. Were you unaware of this piece of Feminist thinking? quote: I talk a bit about the history of gender relations in this society in post 55 above. These are laws that are directed at the subjugation of women in this culture and at the continuation of the power of men over women in social relations in general and marriage specifically. We have most experience with this in our monogamous marriages, but in polygamous marriages, this probably is the same way. Power of men over women. Polyandrous marriages, who knows? I suspect they are another example of gender power relationships with the genders revised, but I can't tell you. In this culture, though, the balance of power is tilted against women. Economic power tends to push against them, and so does violence within relationships and marriages to ensure the power that the guys have tends to stay there. Battles have been fought on issues of conception control and abortion in recent years, women's rights to decide whether or not to have children and whose children those children will be. Feeling runs very high on each side of either debate. At one point it seemed reasonably clear to me that women had won the right to choose to use contraception, should they wish to do so. I may have been premature in my understanding on this matter. The battle about choice (or abortion, if you'd rather) is one that continues. While to my mind the issues around violence in marriage and in relationships are very much about gender roles, you should have a right to have a look at a more considered and widespread look at the problem. Wikipedia is excellent. My own favorite authors are Straus and Geddes, both of whom you should find listed in that article. I'm trying to offer information here, not win a point. Look, think and maybe the two of us can have a better discussion together than we could going at things hammer and tongs. I'd rather work with than against. quote: Gonna ask me the same thing about Catholics or Jews or Blacks? White men? Republicans? Churches? Old Folks? The Poor? The Starving? The Military? The wounded military? Why women in particular? [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-16-2008 03:17 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: First of all why does "dictate" keep coming up in this talk? I certainly don't think that even the most militant feminism "dictates" anything. But still your point about flexibility and variation has little to do with my point ... that extreme forms of feminism have prescribed that we scrap traditional gender roles, because they were soley based upon male domination rather than anything in nature. I'm not drawing the line for anyone, but rather suggesting that those who feel it is best to erase it are erring, and that any homogenizing philosophy applied to gender is bound to do so. Bob: quote: Firstly, I don't consider disagreement as a lack of respect. I respect you very much despite our different angles on this subject, and many others. quote: But if it is prescriptive, it proves no such thing. And as a matter of fact it is the idea now embraced by Western Civilization (and much Eastern), regardless of whether we are able to practice it as well as we should (as I mentioned above). So regardless of whether you were personally among the earliest civilizations that practiced monogamy, it still applies in a myriad of ways. quote: We could talk via email if you would like. I think I would enjoy the company. quote: I don't think a conversion experience is required for the degree of consideration or acceptance I'm talking about, Just like the ethics of Jesus have been greatly embraced by many who could (at this point) care less about the distinctly historical and religious aspects of Christianity. A question you might ask yourself is why monogamy was embraced by Western Civilization to start with. And while I'm sure you would cite economic and sociological conditions which made it simply more practical, you would be only looking at half the picture if you didn't take into account our tendency to consider monogamous matrimony to be the ideal expression of romantic love, and the reasons that most of the world has done so. You can cite history, but to me a return to monogamy was a reformation and progressive. You seem to espouse a merely descriptive view of history (probably postmodernism here), rather than a view which is critical. Accompanying critique, there of course can be a definite lack of compassion and rigidity that you have mentioned several times. But it need not be so, any more than a postmodernist need feel "superior" to those who do not view all cultural expressions as leveled. quote: Though Divine authority is an argument worth exploring, I've never made that argument in isolation from this-world-considerations. Would you feel I have done you justice if I said: "For those of us who feel that cultural relativism does not rule out a real distinction inherent in gender, you'll have to find another way to make your point. For those of us who agree with you already, you will have wasted your breath in the first place by making it at all." I said that for your consideration, but I usually shy from such statements because they are intended to reduce, and therefore marginalize someone's views. Why not let others determine for themselves what is sound in our respective positions here? I know that despite our differences, we still have common ground. quote: Again, my criticism is not of Feminism per se, but of a certain expression, or extension of it. There are many statements in the writings of feminists that initially painted the homemaker in a poor light: “A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism...the housewife's labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable.... Woman's work within the home is not directly useful to society, produces nothing. The housewife is subordinate, secondary, and parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a 'career' for woman." ('The Second Sex' by Simone de Beauvoir) ""As long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed.... No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction." ('Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma' Saturday Review, June 14, 1975., Simone de Beauvoir) ""Housewives are mindless and thing-hungry... They are trapped in trivial domestic routine and meaningless busywork within a community that does not challenge their intelligence. Housework is peculiarly suited to the capabilities of feeble-minded girls; it can hardly use the abilities of a woman of average or normal human intelligence." (The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan) "Housewives are dependent creatures who are still children ... parasites." ('What It Would Be Like If Women Win' Time, August 31, 1970, Gloria Steinem) "Feminism was profoundly opposed to traditional conceptions of how families should be organized, since the very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with the women's movement.... If even ten percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young.... If women disproportionately take time off from their careers to have children, or if they work less hard than men at their careers while their children are young, this will put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis men, particularly men whose wives do all the homemaking and child care.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." ('Why We Lost the ERA' Jane J. Mansbridge) There are more, but that should be enough to convince you that what I'm saying is a real reaction to a real strain in feminism, and not merely a right-wing caricature. quote: Yes, I hope I can. But you also have the understanding to know that I am not referring to the aspects of feminism which rightly dealt with issues of human rights. quote: Again, not once have I mentioned law, only ideology, though it keeps coming up. Legislatively, I would be against a law that forces women to have children. Personally (and ideologically) I think that a spouse who refuses to have children in a marriage while their partner desires children (for other than health reasons), doesn't yet understand what marriage is about, being still caught up in individualism. Of course we all do this in a number of ways, but this is pretty significant I think, which would explain (though not justify) the existence of such laws. quote: And my argument is that there has been more to it than that, at least in some circles. There is a definite shape which some feminist minds want women to become, certainly not including the freedom to be "more traditional if one wants to". quote: As you have stated it, legislatively, to ensure the human rights of women ... no. But again, I was speaking of something different. quote: Are these present laws? Or laws dealing with human rights which have already been overturned? I am not for laws which would violate basic human rights. We're still talking around each other aren't we? quote: Yes it does continue, and since I would oppose it even if men had babies, I cannot view this as even remotely having to do with feminism. The fact that women have babies is somewhat incidental to the debate which at its heart has to do (at least on the side of most anti-abortionists) with the human rights of the unborn human being. To say that pro-lifers are sexist is anachronistic and unconvincing. Though I recognize that you're not really saying this is the case, you're just mentioning it as a part of the historical unfolding of the feminist dialogue. quote: Yes, often involving the abuse of traditional gender roles. quote: I appreciate your sentiment here. I share it more than you might think. Though I don't think the discussion is going badly or anything. Intensity is not a counterproductive thing always. I consider what things those who disagree with me say, even though I probably come across as abrasive at times. We are learning from each other. quote: Because the thread is about feminism? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I haven't had a chance to look at what promices to be a return to a meaty dialogue. I do look forward to it. But I did promise a link on revelation and the authority of revelation in Greek culture and I did want to supply that simply because it seems to fit into an area of mutual interest and also because I think that it adds considerably to appreciation of how Greek culture may have added depth and substance to the original Judaic messages in the New T. Paul may have been influenced in some way perhaps, though I can only speculate. Check it out yourself and let me know what your reaction is: [URL=http://www.foucault.info/documents/parrhesia/foucault.DT5.techniquesParrhesia.en.html]http://www.foucault.info/documents/parrhesia/foucault.DT5.techniquesParrhesia.en.html[/UR L] Best from here to you and your folk there. BobK. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I had a chance to have a quick look at your posting and am impressed once again. I'll need time and though to offer the decent response you deserve, of course. I particularly enjoyed your quotes from Simone de All this double posting feels like I'm having an attack of stuttering. Sorry. I'll master this stuff yet. [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-16-2008 09:41 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I had a chance to have a quick look at your posting and am impressed once again. I'll need time and though to offer the decent response you deserve, of course. I particularly enjoyed your quotes from Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem. All these ladies were very tough minded intellectuals. Ms Steinem still is. I don't think she'd agree with her forty year old statement now. I don't know about Betty Freidan; her concern was to issue a cry to arms to women who were to her mind pretty much suffering under the yoke of servitude, and her rhetoric tended to reflect this. Simone de Beauvoir was a red-hot French Mama, an old-fashioned marxist, an existentialist philosopher in her own right, and Jean-Paul Sartre's on-and-off main squeeze. Putting anything past her would be a terrible miscalculation and she would probably be able to make it sound reasonable to boot. I don't agree with her her, but by golly wouldn't it have been something to have had a chance to talk to her face to face for a while? I think the movement left that particular position behind a while ago. O. Hobart Maurer, if I have his name correctly, reminds us that the church originally held confession in front of the whole congregation. The idea has some merit to it, I would think, by the way, but it's not practiced in most churches today. Positions and thought changes about these things. You won't find many Feminists who would hold that position today, nor would you have for the last 20-25 years. quote: Part of the tradition in traditional gender roles in marriage is that these roles have been enforced by the law, Stephanos. The part you may wish to deal with may only encompass the ideology. But part of the tradition is that these gender roles have not been freely chosen but have been enforced by the law with legal sanction directed against women. I make reference to this in my post number 55 in this thread and I don't think I should try again here what I think I said fairly well there. Not only were many of the marriage laws unpleasant, but many of them did not require the consent of the woman for a binding marriage to be performed. Only her presence and presence of a groom and a witness and a clergyman empowered to do the ceremony. Kidnappings were common in Elizabethan England using just this scheme and continued into the 19th Century in Scotland. The woman was obligated to give the man control of her estate and to have children with the guy. They were married. Much about traditional marriage marriage may be wonderful. Clearly you see these wonders when you look into the eyes of your wife. I do when I see mine. That doesn't mean these other things aren't true as well, Stephanos. It is this dimension of power within traditional marriage that accounts for many of its difficulties. Do other forms of marriage have problems as well. Yes they do. Many of them have problems with power as well. It's one of the nice things about women that they think about these things, and sometimes it's one of the nice things about us men that we try talking with them about the issues as well. Looking forward to taking this up with you again later. Wonderful discussion so far. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Had to laugh at this one, in a discussion about feminism and gender stereotypes no less. I'll respond later, You've worn me out Bob. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: Bob, if you won't let Stephen reference Gloria Steinem, I hardly think it fair you get to jump clear back to Elizabethan England? p.s. I briefly dated the vice president of the San Diego chapter of NOW in 1980. I'm glad you didn't say "last 20-28 years," Bob, else I'd have had to disagree strenuously. As it is, I fear I have no anecdotes with which to counter your timeline. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
Dear Ron, who is vice president of the San Diego chapter of NOW in 1980? (what is NOW?) A woman been loved and respected shall be a very good story to tell here in this thread. Please, please!!! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, All time lines are approximate. I'm sure there were loads of folks like that about 25 years ago too Ron, and I know you wouldn't bring it up without reason. Bring up Gloria Steinem as well. I'm not trying to clear the field of people I don't agree with or points of view either for that matter. I figure the job I'd like to do is to try to put our happy little heads together and come up with something that makes intellectual and gut sense both to as many of us as possible. The 16th Century stuff isn't to bring up old business but to try to connect what was happening then to what's happening now, and it's for that reason as well that your comments about NOW should be welcome as well. I think we're all pretty much scrambled, and talking together is a way of clearing the air and creating broad based sense where there were only little islands of it standing before. At least that's my project. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Is this the intention of NOW? (I am soooo glad that you are here lively today after dating the vice president of NOW) all human organizations have problems. And there is saying that if you want to make straight of the bended, you have to overbend to the opposite direction for a while to get it done. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Here are some positive words from Kathleen Herbert's Peaceweavers and Shieldmaidens: Women in Early English Society, something people may think proudly about: "The most useful words to hear first are some of their (English people's) words for women, because these hold the basic ideas about them, built into the very fabric of the language. They come into everything else the early English said on the subject of women. If you could ask someone from early England: What is a woman? the answer would likely be: A woman is a man, of course! That would not mean women were regarded as a subgroup of the male sex, or that they had no seperate identity or personality but only a particular use. In the Germanic languages, mann means a human being of either sex, a member of humankind. So in a land lease granted by a Bishop of Worcester for a duration of three lives: "Elfward was the first man and now it [the land] is in the hands of his daughter and she is the second man" . Early English legal documents - wills, charters, lawsuits- make this meaning of man quite clear. They also make it clear that females owned and disposed of their own property and estates. People (menn) were wæponedmenn or wæpmenn and wifmenn: "weapon-people" and "wife-people". When they left out the idea of common humanity, menn, the early English classified people as weras and wifas: "males" and "wives". A wer- the word survives in werewolf - was someone who could put seed into a woman so that she could make children. The word comes from the same root as the Latin vir, from which we get "virile" and "virility". [...] Though wif is the ancestor of "wife" it does not mean a female bound in wedlock. A fishwife, an alewife, a henwife, a housewife - these were women who had particular jobs that needed special skills. The word wif cannot be traced in any form in the other Indo-European languages outside Germanic. It is found in all the Germanic languages except Gothic. [...] It seems very likely that the form of the word and its metaphorical images point to a connection with the verb wefan "to weave" and its related nouns webb "woven stuff" and wefta: "weft", the threads crossing from side to side on a loom. Oddly, the word wefan is also not recorded in Gothic. The idea of a link between weaving and woman is strengthened by considering the similar train of thought in a pair of words used in King Alfred's will. He distinguished descent in the male and female lines as "the spear side" and "the spindle side". Males expressed their masculinity by weapons, females expressed their femininity by making threads. This Old English definition of woman as spinner and weaver was a very profound concept with several levels of meaning, from an everyday task that met a physical need, rising through art and the structure of society, up to the nature of heaven and earth. Women clothed humankind: in the days before textile factories and the ready-made clothing trade, they spun and wove the cloth as well as furnishing the clothes. [...] However, as well as being weavers - makers and artists in the literal sense - early English women,wifmenn, were also seen as spinning and weaving the threads that held societies together. One Old English word for a highborn woman who married to make or keep the peace between two powerful kindreds, dynasties, or tribes is frithuwebbe: peaceweaver. [...] . The Old English ancestor of lady: hlæfdige, seems to have derived from hlaf: bread "loaf". The chief woman of a household would have charge of the food-supply, as housekeeper, even if she were rich enough to have many servants. The lives, comfort and the status of the others, from kin and guests to slaves and beggars, depended on her. [...] The early English saw the normal division of work - with apparantly no sense of resentment or contempt on either side - as being between war, defence, law-enforcement and hunting wild animals for food, on one side, on the other, the arts and skills of peaceweaving in all its forms." |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
Dear Sir Essorant, when did English start their potato planting? and sheep raising? and tea leaves picking and cotton? When did the industry revolution start? and what is now? Computer age, many women program and type faster than men. Then what? I love your summary on the role of man/woman. it quite fits in this thread. quote: woman making thread must mean demure in your dictionary. Dear Ron, Sir Essorant is very right this time, right? [This message has been edited by Seoulair (04-17-2008 04:47 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thanks Essorant. I've never been able to track down "wyf" and I find that material pretty cool. It helps broaden out the picture for me. I notice, for example, that none of the relationships you mention here are primarily power relationships and there is no expressed concern with paternity, which in many societies is a big deal. In iceland today, however, the last name of the child depends on its gender. The son is named after the father and the daughter after the mother. I'm not clear about the finer details though. Gunnar's boy child with Marta, Stephan, would be Stephan Gunnars- sohn. Their daughter, Hilde, would be Hilde Martas-dottar. Something like that. The anthropology is different than it is elsewhere in Europe. Bride-price and bride-gold still need some sort of explanation, though, I'd imagine, if that world were to be as egalitarian as you or I might hope to imagine it. It may be difficult to distinguish myth from reality or one layer or reality from another in looking at these accounts. Also it may be important to distinguish elements of the Goddess and the eternal Feminine from the actual conditions of real women living in history then and now. To some extend the discussion about Feminism can't help but be infused with archetypal elements of how people feel about the Feminine in their lives. You can't help but notice the amount of passion and rage the discussion has drawn to it over thousands of years. It's not a math problem, it's what I think of as a Tissue-Issue. People carry the conflict in the very meat of them. Here we are locked in the middle of it. Again. Why this discussion? Why does this one get people so flustered, passionate, discombobulated? (On a personal level, I have often asked myself why is it that there's always a Bob in the middle of every discombobulation? Is it our Fate?) Have you by chance seen Denis de Rougemont's, LOVE IN THE WESTERN WORLD? (I have no idea how to access italics in this program, and it drives me nuts.) I'm pretty sure that "romantic love" is tied in here somehow, Anyway, inquiring minds want to know. Any thoughts? Yours, BobK. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
 Franch woman in WWI. Should they stay home? to be the demure ones?  |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
And Canadian women   |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
LMAO @ the women in the plow... lol... sorry, I'm sure it's not funny to them, but has anyone here seen Borat? Not that much more can be said about it on this forum... but if you've seen it, my amusement speaks for itself. See, not all feminists are humorless man-haters... LOL... sorry, I'm cracking myself up here. Bob... interesting... yes... level? Um, okay, thanks, but not too sure about that. Nice of you to say anyway. Stephen: 'First of all why does "dictate" keep coming up in this talk? I certainly don't think that even the most militant feminism "dictates" anything.' Well, that's an easy one. Because men have dictated what women do for much of history. The word and idea of dictating are central to any discussion of civil rights, and particularly feminism. I do think your statment is interesting when compared to your second-wave feminist quotes. I'll admit that I found Gloria Steinem hard to swallow, and her dictation of what feminism is to be somewhat offensive. Because the second-wave feminist movement mirrors, in my opinion, the male-dominated structure it sprang from. Look, don't get me wrong, I think they were a very important group of women, and their hardness sprung from the times... not only from the social oppression of women, but we're talking about the 60's... the widespread repression of the 50's giving way to social movements of every color, and many of them militant and angry. As a younger person, I relate far more with 3rd wave feminism, a more all-encompassing ideology. let's face it, second-wave feminism catered to the elite, well educated woman. Third-wave caters to all women, in all walks of life, and while some third-wave feminists are pretty far out there on the political spectrum, I find it overall to be a much more accepting ideaology. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Hush, I guess you'd be talking about by comments on the Goddess and the archetypal element of the whole thing. There's a decent body of literature on women and the Feminine in the Jungian literature. Among authors of interest, you might look at would be M. Esther Harding, Marie Louise von Franz and Emma Jung. Among the books that seem to have a certain specific bearing on these issues is Animus and Anima (were I aware of how to use italics in this program, I would place this book title in italics), by Emma Jung. But any decent discussion of the topic is thought provoking at a minimum. June Singer's book, Boundaries of The Soul (again my comment about italics) is very lucid and is particularly good on the subject. It may seem out there to you, but I'm afraid that's a product of my hurried writing. The subject is worth the exploration. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
<off topic> quote: It's not a big secret, Bob: UBB Code Explained </off topic> |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
 Eldest daughter of Lord Byron, known as the first computer programmer. Her name, Ada, is today used in Military Computer language. She developed a system of punch cards to solve mathematical equations using the Jacquard card system (1801) of looms used to weave fabric patterns. http://www.wic.org/artwork/ada.htm (Ada's mother, what was she good at? "Five weeks after Ada was born Lady Byron asked for a separation from Lord Byron, and was awarded sole custody of Ada who she brought up to be a mathematician and scientist. Lady Byron was terrified that Ada might end up being a poet like her father. " http://www.agnesscott.edu/lriddle/WOMEN/love.htm Women shall be allowed to do what they are good at, individually. . [This message has been edited by Seoulair (04-19-2008 02:22 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hey Ess~ quote: Yeah, sure. Why not? However, every human being should be leery of those who feel it's necessary to scream out who they are. It's a good indication that the one doing all the screaming isn't wholly convinced about one's self or has lost direction with one's own cause. quote: This is a passive and non-supportive statement to your wonderful example of a female role model. Women are individuals and they are good at any damn thing they set their hearts and minds to. Not unlike men, at all. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
