Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

LazarussLozenge wrote - "the photo. At best you've found a bloke who is a bit of an arse and is taking up too much room."

You seem to be suggesting that a photo of a man on a train taking up more than his fair share of the seating area shows some kind of rare event. This page of the same website shows another 200 such examples. It happens very often. It is not a rare event.

The website was set up to draw attention to male domination of public transport space. It was originally a group on Facebook, but the people running the website say that they closed the Facebook group after receiving death threats and sexist harrassment for daring to highlight the issue.

Ah, I see you've moved on to flicking insults at basil because you've no idea how to refute her point.

This is getting tedious.

Actually, you did claim men were oppressed due to sex. You responded repeatedly to my posts saying men were not oppressed due to sex with posts about men as 'chattels' during arranged marriage. The fact that your argument is bogus, does not (unfortunately) mean you didn't try to make it. You did.

I do not need to provide a link to demonstrate that the pharaohs of Egypt were mostly male. If you honestly didn't know that basic fact, the onus is on you to educate yourself, not on me to explain primary-school history to you.

You have made a lot of historical errors, starting with your rather hastily-retracted discussion of how women worked at home, and some bizarre and incoherent points about midwives.

You don't seem to understand much about the Egyptian pantheon. I suggest you read up before coming up with bilge about 'top gods' or about male gods being a 'reason' why women were oppressed. You probably also need to consider the very obvious fact that a society that comes up with an image of God as male, probably does so because it is misogynistic. Or are you trying to tell us you believe the Egyptian gods were real beings?

The incest idea is certainly not discredited. In fact, it's been possible to do DNA tests demonstrating that some of the pharaohs and members of the royal family were products of brothers and sisters. Again, educate yourself.

Flora, do you know how many 'boys only' schools have now gone co-ed? Not because of some manipulation by behind the scene MRAs or space lizards... but due to market forces. Parents want siblings in one location.

They are just businesses, not some secret part of a masculine dominated military/industrial crypto faciest complex.

It's hardly a secret that men who attended boys' public schools are still disproportionately represented in public life, business etc.

Sorry if comment above is a bit late in the thread - I had the window open for some time

"But I will turn off and stop listening when they start saying silly things like I am in some way of responsible, or that men deliberately hold women down or that men subjugate women by subtle town planning."

Ah yes I'm glad you brought that up again - it got lost upthread last time and I wanted to comment on it.

Oppression is basically 'control' of one individual or group by another for the benefit of the controller and to the detriment of the controlled. This control can be applied by deliberate, overt and knowing violence and the terror by implied violence, however it can also be applied in a less conscious and overt way too.

This can simply be by not even thinking about how ones actions effect the group you have power and control over in an 'arms-length' kind of way. Such behaviour is unlikely to be deliberate - it can be quite innocently (ignorantly) believing that you are the default human, therefore what is good for you is good for all- harmless enough if you don't have power beyond those who are just like you, but if you do- dangerous and oppressive to those who are not.

It is unlikely that any feminist believes that town planning is consciously oppressive to women.

Just to remind everyone where the town planning non-sense came from...

"BasilBabyEater Fri 26-Apr-13 22:43:56

Public space is not a neutral space, it is overwhelmingly a male space. It was designed in the main by male town planners with male priorities and women are there on tolerance only. That's why men shout obscenities and abuse in the street - to remind us that we have no right to be there without a male owner companion."

It's like something Millie Tant would come out with (Viz character).

MooncupGoddess Sat 27-Apr-13 12:57:55

"I love the way Lazarus sees the Middle Ages through a modern lens. It's like the basket-makers had to demonstrate an annual level of CPD-type related activities, and if they'd had a baby they wouldn't have done any paid work during the year and hence would be seen as out of the game, professionally speaking.

Suffice it to say that it wasn't quite like that."

Not quite.

I have not said men were oppressed due to sex. I am pointing out that women's oppression isn't purely due to their sex.

I've provided a link, how about you provide one that disproves the link rather than just your own opinon? If mine is not valid, nor is yours (equality remember )

I didn't make historical errors, in the main they have been inserted. Either by my poor posting or people jumpng to conclusions about my posts.

I would say you refuse to see what I am saying because it would disrupt your well entrenched beliefs that men are out to oppress women, consciously or other wise.

Your comment about a female Egyptian being a 'concubine' of her brother exposes this.

Men were indeed always the King (ie higher than the Queen) but there is a reason for this (other than the oppression of women). The Monarchy were teh human embodiment of the Gods and Goddesses.

The King was Ra... the top god. IIRC the sun fought the night (Horus?).

The incest thing is now largely discredited. Brother and sister and even fatehr and daughter marrid, but women weren't allowed to marry beneath them. If you are the top woman in a society whom do you marry?

The Egyptians seem to have been aware of the dangers of incest. By only marrying within the family the royals also kept themselves apart from their subjects. Both King and Queen seemed to have been able to avail themselves to the pleasures of groups of hidden wives and husbands, the next king and queen didn't neccesarily spring from the Queen.

The Queens of Egypt seem to have been very important people in their own right, both in power and in religion.

And I will repeat what you do not want to hear.

Men have been treated as chattels. Regardless of what you may think. Go and research it if you doubt it.

lazarus, men and women were not equal in Ancient Egypt. Simple facts, such as that most pharaohs were men, will tell you this. The academic you quote is making the point (which has already been explained upthread), that greater legal parity does not mean equality across the board.

There is no society that we know of, in which men and women have been equals.

I would say, I think a society where, if you were a royal woman, you were likely to end up as one of your brother's concubines and quite likely to bear children with congenital deformities that might kill them, you, or both, probably wasn't a 'nice place for women to live'. Respectfully, I disagree with that academic. I am also pretty sure she's not thinking in absolute terms, so I doubt she would mind!

The point about listening is not because we're 'pre-programmed'. It's because we're conditioned. And what you 'believe' is totally irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

You started into this with a lot of historical errors, which you are trying to use to pretend that men have sometimes been oppressed because of their sex. We have demonstrated that you are in error - yet you still think you are 'listening'? Really?

The patriarchy is not about pointing the finger at individual men. It is about describing a structure that exists in our society, and which oppresses women. We do not necessarily consciously participate in reinforcing that structure. No-one is saying town planners sit down to discuss 'how can we mess things up for the women today'. You have misunderstood the terms of the debate.

However, we can look to issues such as the treatment of women in history, or to the fact that men are not treated like chattels as a result of their sex and women are, or even to town planning, to see that that structure exists.

LRD, Re Egypt

www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/womneg.htm

Joyce Tyldesly of Cornell University (Ivy League, USA) says...

"An exception to most other ancient societies, Egyptian women achieved parity with Egyptian men. They enjoyed the same legal and economic rights, at least in theory, and this concept can be found in Egyptian art and contemporary manuscripts. The disparities between people's legal rights were based on differences in social class and not on gender. Legal and economic rights were afforded to both men and women.

It is interesting that when the Greeks conquered Egypt in 332 B.C.E., Egyptian women were allowed more rights and privileges than Greek women, who were forced to live under the less equal Greek system."

finishing with

"Many people say the Egyptian time was a good time to live. It seems that it was, at least, a nice place for women to live. It was filled with equality for them, and gave them some basic rights that today's society is lacking."

It's as equal as a time as we can probably find.

Sparta wasn't too good at recording their history, in comparison to other societies of the time, but

Aristotle wrote "during the period of their empire, many things were administered by the women. Yet what is the difference between having rulers who are ruled by women and an actual government of women?" They certainly seemed to have enjoyed more economic and political freedom than the other Grecian women.

And they had their own games to keep fit, and were educated to a higher level. The Spartans seemed more than aware that healthy educated parents produced better children.

DoctrineofSnatch. You are quite correct that a female leader having a child would remove any doubt that the child was that of the leader, and thus improve the inheritance line.

But pregnancy and childbirth was far from safe, the chances of death of the mother was high, and thus the leader. Also should she be infertile it would be another time of uncertainly in the line of succession, where another branch of the family or famly enemies could pounce.

LRD, nobody actually appears to have said women haven't been 'oppressed'. As I have stated when I entered the thread, I have more of a problem with the way the issue is being addressed by certain elements of feminism.

You yourself claimed we are pre-programmed to listen to men more than women. I don't believe that. I will listen to anybody. But I will turn off and stop listening when they start saying silly things like I am in some way of responsible, or that men deliberately hold women down or that men subjugate women by subtle town planning.

Another quickie post, btw:

The major flaw in this 'women worked at home, men worked in the fields, cos of nature' issue isn't that women could and did work outside the home. It's that for much of history (and still in some cultures today), everyone works in the home (including the land around the home). Men and women.

This idea that we can generalize what happened during the industrial revolution backwards and assume that all work within the home was originally 'women's work', is just not true. It's a way of constructing a narrative that appears to explain our current model of women's oppression, where women struggle to get into paid employment and where work within the home is not well valued. However, it's false.

The ways in which oppression of women shapes the workplace differ across time. The industrial revolution replaced one society in which women were economically oppressed with another society in which women were economically oppressed. The constant in this is women's oppression.

Stories about some imagined period of history, either one where women were equal to men and everything was lovely or where women were sweet stay-at-home mums who didn't lift a finger, are equally bullshit and equally well designed to stop us trying to tackle the real issue. That women are and have been oppressed.

Given that it's far easier to be sure who is a baby's mother than who its father might be, that would seem to be an argument for inheritance passing down the female line rather than the male.

The fact that these places were very much more equal than certain other societies (compare the legal rights of women in Egypt compared with Greece, or Sparta to Athens) doesn't mean they were equal as we would understand it.

lazarus - no, Ancient Egypt is not believed to have been an equal society. Look at the numbers of male versus female pharaohs, for a start.

Sparta was not especially progressive either.

Try again.

Bubbles, I am not saying there wre no women working. Just how the 'stay at home mum' concept started to take form.

LRD,

Ancient Egypt is beleived to have been a equal society as far as sexes were concerned, likewise other ancient societies.

Roman and Greek not so much. Sparta was quite progressive, but still not completely equal.

The concept of property (as minx as mentioned) was the main cause of the slip.

A family head was responsiblve for the rise (or fall) of a families fortunes. Such a person's death was a time of uncertainity for what was essentially a dictatorship.

To prevent teh fragmentation of the family (and fall from grace and fortune) a strong and recognised leader was a must.

"Men were sex slaves too, and some even had the balls cut off."

I would say boys rather than men. Some men have kept/keep women, girls and boys as sex slaves. Far fewer grown men- not saying it doesn't happen though.

Anyway the issue when looking for the roots of patriarchal oppression is not to be found by examining the victims, but the perpetrators of violent masculinity.

I don't think any feminists think that men are in league to oppress women. But the point is that society is man shaped, specifically in the west it is white able bodied man shaped. When this is pointed out to men some are very defensive of the status quo and frankly why wouldn't they be? It serves them very well. It's not working for me though.

Hang on - what about all the women working in the mills? They weren't staying at home

Bubbles, the violent caputure and slavery isn't a women only thing. It has happened to men over the years too. Men were sex slaves too, and some even had the balls cut off.

Chubb, I fully agree that any inequality based on outdated practices should be removed. Certainly more should not be brought in.

Basil, women started staying at home in order to carry out the various support functions required. They looked after the kids, cooked, looked after the family livestock etc.

I beleive that if a modern housewife was to be paid for her work it was worked out it would come in at about £30k or more. It is by no means a small input to the family.

Why did this start? Certainly during the Industrial Revolution we started to see more complex skills coming in to the work area. As machines took over work, allowing fewer to do more, redundancies followed. Again, women having to take time off (no matter how small) in order to have kids meant it was natural for them to drop out of the work place and in to the home.

The practice of the woman being younger than the man also played a part, the man often earnt more.

Again, it wasn't a nefarious plot to keep women in the home. Men are not in league against women.

Sorry, read to a post and stopped (because I am dipping in and out of the thread now).

'LRD it wasn't engrained in the culture prior to the industrial revolution.

If you go far enough back sexes at one time were seen as equal.'

When? Please tell me exactly when and provide me with the historical evidence.

I would especially like to know in which pre-industrial-revolution era misogyny was not ingrained in the culture.

"the process of subjugation is historical and is not based on biological determinism but from the division of labour that sprang from practical necessity."

Sorry, what practical necessity?

There was no practical necessity for dividing labour, on the contrary, there was simply not enough population to have the luxury of being able to divide labour in that inefficient way.

The division of labour by sex, came much later, with the growth of patriarchy. It did not stem from practical necessity, but from ideology disguised as practical necessity.