The Burning Times: fascinating docu on women's power before Christianity

[sakura]

[[

#at=380 youtube]]

ANd why women are feared to the extent that they are accused of witchcraft and killed for it

I'm not saying they didn't mean it! That'll be the "Oh dear, I seem to have unintentionally stuck my penis into a woman" rape defence, eh?

In my eyes, it's the nature of may humans to wrest wealth and power from other humans, particularly those perceived as weaker. I see that, itself, as more or less gender neutral. As discussed, I know mine is not the only pov and that the different perspectives are irreconcilable on some points. It doesn't have to mean one's 'right' and one's 'wrong' though, surely?

Pardon the lazy comparison, but it's a bit like me saying British wine's improving because we're learning better methods, while you say it's all down to climate change. Whichever argument may be stronger, we're agreed that the wine's improved.

Have just seen there's a bunch of new replies. But am going out to buy some (Australian) wine ...

Enjoy the wine GB.

This may be a distasteful thing to say, but we don't really know if it's in the nature of women to oppress men to the degree that men have oppressed women. As with evolution (which is a hypothesis formed by describing the existing evidence), we can theorize that it's (generalization) in the nature of men to oppress women, but not vice-versa.

I should make clear, I'm an optimist and I don't believe there's anything fundamental about the nature of men that makes them more likely to be oppressors than women. But if you look at it as scientists have looked at evolution, you couldn't jump to the conclusion that in some alternative version of history, women would have formed an oppressive matriarchy, any more than the evidence that provides the theory of evolution would let you argue convincingly for a world made in 7 days.

Ohh, I'd like to read The Myth of the Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future by Cynthia Eller

On one of the old patriarchy threads, somebody came up with a much more accurate qualifier than 'accidental'. Can't remember what it was,

... I know that's in a sense a really obvious point to make, but I think it's important because sometimes it gets lost, the fact that men have oppressed women more than women have ever oppressed men, because it's fashionable to stress instead that there's no obvious difference between men's and women's natures.

Dittany,

What you lack in erudition, you make up for in imagination. Now you dip your toes into the waters of etymology:

"Animal husbandry and husband (of a wife) come from the same root. At some point (gee not that long ago) wives were livestock owned by men and of course they still are in some parts of the world:"

I liked this line too:

"I think when feminists find the MRAs agreeing with them, they should reconsider their arguments."

I think it would be more fitting to say that, when your arguments are shown to fly in the face of reason and fact, you need to reconsider them, regardless of who has corrected your folly.
Ultimately, you might consider the possibility that you are, yourself, a sexist bigot who will try and grind any bit of information to fit your own jaundiced view of the world.

But she's right that wives were livestock and the word husband/husbandry are from the same root. What's the problem with that?

Sorry, I mean obviously there are huge problems with that as a concept, but as a description it's totally valid and not 'imaginative' at all, just true.

Tyr - leave off the personal insults. From what I've seen you've come on this thread to goad Dittany. Don't do that.

No, there are huge problems with it, full stop. It's just wrong. I was going to type a response pointing out how words linking all manner of disparate concepts share common roots and for various reasons. I'd also intended to give a brief outline of the various types of semantic shift encountered in that field but I was laughing so hard at the livestock comment, I couldn't and the urge has gone off me now. Somehow, I don't think it would have made any difference, coming from a "MRA" (actually quite funny that one, if you knew the truth)
I'm actually waiting to see what she comes up with next. She may, for example, be searching the field of micro-biology as we speak for a useable nugget.
On a more serious note, those who protest most loudly their (as they see it) feminist agenda on this thread might wish to reflect on the impression they (with one or two exceptions) create of themselves with this kind of hysterical nonsense.
Unless of course they are actually joking. Which I doubt.

"Hysterical"?

Aliceworld,

You're wrong about that and, if you read back over the posts, you'll see that.

I used it to describe the misinformed nonsense coming from some quarters. That is different.

Tyr, as SGM says, if you know something, share.

From what little I know, having only studied OE as part of my Masters, I think dittany is right. If you know different, though, feel free to explain.

LRD,

Right about what, exactly?

She is correct that 'husband' and 'husbandry' come from the same root, and she is correct that women used to be livestock owned by men.

Me SAF, or Tyr? If me, I should say it's stupid to try to argue against an OED citation unless you're in the business of writing the OED, and I don't think Tyr or I is. Dittany's already given the citation, so there's no issue. I can also tell Tyr he's wrong to mock the women-as-livestock issue, because it is perfectly true and well attested.