Saturday, September 20, 2008

The History of Women

First of all, I am NOT a feminist. Just because I actually studied history and (whether they were written by feminists or not) I happen to go with what has been presented to me until I or someone else provides me evidence contrary to what I've found doesn't make me a feminist. It makes me a student. If someone reading this has other resources for me, give them to me.

I'm writing this because someone accused me of being a feminist because I dared voice something along these lines on a comment that he failed to publish. Lets not even dare mention that he posts comments that he can come up with a rebuttal for and not the ones he can't. He just published a comment and responded to it, claiming that I had no rebuttal for him because I have no point. To protect my intellectual honesty, this is my response to him.

Where do I start, its a bit long to cover all of history, but where the hell does one start?

There have been periods of time that I'm 100% certain of that had a prevalence of feministic thought - The Etruscans were largely (as Elusive Wapiti would say) matrifocal. They weren't a strong civilization, so I won't call it a matriarchy. They were, though, egalitarian with a strong leaning towards matriarchy. They are the forerunners of the Romans - who, at first, were incredibly patriarchal and the women didn't have much place in society - much like parts of Greece. However, there is a period of time in Roman history where the women became much more extraverted - lesbianism became more prevalent, abortion - both in-utero and infanticide - became more common... strangely, right before the fall - and i wonder how many of those insane and corrupt emperors had feminist mothers?

Another civilization, Greece, has an interesting history of feminist thought. The Spartans were LARGELY patriarchal, where women had absolutely no role in society except raising kids to the ripe old age of 4...which is when their sons were removed from them and put through military training. Athens, at first of course, SO devalued women that they weren't allowed out of the homes. Women were not allowed to be seen in public. If her husband were entertaining guests, she was seen and not heard...if seen at all. Male company was considered more honorable than that of female company (and you wonder where homosexuals came from...). Even at the deathbed, a close male friend was preferred over the wife. Why? Because the wife's only role was to provide heirs. That was what they did.

Of course, then you have the island of lesbos, where a certain poet praised the beauty of the female form, glorified female companionship, and provided a haven where women could feel worthy. I'm fairly certain that her brand of thought didn't remain on that island for long, and began infiltrating Athenian culture...and eventually making its way into Roman culture.

Yes, feminism has definitly been around for a LONG while. And it has done some horrific things to American (and British and any other culture that embraces it) culture.

However, to deny that misogyny did not exist, did not have a prevalent foothold in society at ANY one time is as much a lie as women claiming that women were "oh so trampled" until the 1960's.

You have chinese culture, clearly patriarchal, where women have no ability to support themselves outside of the men in their lives. If there are no men, then they are destitute. They have been physically abused to gain a perception of beauty - foot wrapping. They were not allowed to look a man in the eyes - at ANY time. They wore clothes that wrapped tightly around their legs and hips so they would shuffle - and unable to run away from their husbands...why?

Of course, there will always be the husband that treats his wife respectfully, but power has this unusual affect of corrupting people - and it DOES corrupt. And to think that 100% of all men were immune to such corruption when they held all the power over the female members of their society, do you really think they treated them well 100% of the time? Fairly certain that wasn't the case.

This isn't about the work that men and women had to do, though have you ever had to make lye soap? Both men's and women's labor was significantly harder in centuries past - it was not by any means a picnic for either, but that was by no means my point.

My point was that there were points in history where children were forcibly removed from their mothers, when women were beaten just for the heck of it, where women relied solely on the good will of their corruptible men-folk to provide for them.

Where the only way a father could secure the future of his daughters was to *hopefully* marry them off to good men (assuming, of course, the father cared about his daughters) - money or my daughter's well being?

I'm not trying to excuse feminism - absolutely NOT. I think feminism has taken their cause to new heights at the expense of men, completely reversing the problems. But the darling little wounded man does not have an innocent history. And if they are SO opposed to what feminism has done, then they need to evaluate what the best way to go about getting their freedoms back is going to be.

And it won't be doing what the feminists have done, meaning elevating men at the expense of women. If they really want things to be better for themselves, they're going to have to come up with ways that elevate them and still provide necessary protection to the female. Without that, it'll be a lost cause - and with that, I can't see how respect would be lost for them...just don't expect women to be the one's to change the tide ... it won't happen.


MarkyMark said...

One, if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then you're probably dealing with a duck. Calling that duck something else does NOT change what he is; he is still a duck.

Two women will HAVE to change the current system; after all, they're the ones who INITIATED IT-duh! That, and there are more women than men; when it comes to voting, women have all the power. This is evidenced by the fact that you always hear candidates for office talking about women's issues, but they NEVER talk about men's issues. Women have all the power in today's society, so it's up to THEM to change it. But, I won't hold my breath on that happening, because they'd lose all the goodies feminism got them. Oh well, I'll just be MGHOW... :)

Christina said...

First, What exactly is your definition of a feminist?

Seems like we have different definitions, mine being "the promotion of female interests at the expense of men".

I don't see how giving a fair and impartial view of history (which I believe I gave) is promoting female interests at the expense of men's.

If you think that's what I did, then do show, point for point, where I am PROMOTING female interests AT THE EXPENSE of men's interests.

Second, from beginning of time (yeay for actually learning history) the one in power who has the power and is benefitting from the power has NEVER given up such power for the benefit of a lower power.

From the beginning of time, the ones being abused by a larger power would take things into their own hands and make a change - revolutionary thought, aye?

My hope, though, is that when men realize that that's what needs to happen that they won't take the same tactic that the women did when they did it - meaning, don't elevate the men's interests at the expense of the women's. Rather elevate the men's interests to where they are supposed to be and make sure the women are in their proper place, as well - which does not mean groveling at the feet of men...which honestly, I think you and all your cohorts think the case should be.

If you still think that's the viewpoint of a feminist, so be it. You obviously have no clue what a feminist is.

MarkyMark said...


It's late, and I just got back from my mom's house. She's in FL, so I checked on her house in South Jersey while she was gone. Anyway, I'm too tired to really do justice to your questions right now.

However, I would like to say this in agreement with you: it's crucial that we define our terms, so we can be sure we're talking about the same thing. While I cannot give you a good, dictionary type definition of defining terms, I can furnish an example of this. If we look at the word, grass, it'll mean different things to different people. It'll mean one thing to a landscaper, whereas it'll mean something TOTALLY DIFFERENT to a pothead.

Along that vein, perhaps we are talking about different things when we use the word, feminist. If that's the case, then of course there will be confusion. Now, to be clear about it, I don't think you ARE a feminist; I've read enough of your writings so that I'm inclined to doubt that. However, because we all (you, me, and everyone else) have been indoctrinated with it all of our lives, it does influence our thoughts, our views, our perceptions, and the interpretation thereof. Given some of the WORDING you've used in some of your postings, one could misconstrue their meaning.

Again, I think another example would be in order. Let's say you see me driving a car around. It's not mine, but you have no way of knowing that, since you're only seeing me in passing. Now, on the back of this car, you see stickers that say, "Save the Whales", "Green Peace", etc. Are you not going to think that I'm a liberal whacko? I'd think so. Even if I were to protest to the contrary, you'd be inclined to doubt me, wouldn't you? Well, when I see someone using certain words and phrases that are often associated with feminists and their rantings, then I'm inclined to think that they have feminist sympathies.

Before I sign off, I will say this: women need to be kept in check; they to be kept on a shorter leash. Making them equal with men was a mistake. Cato the Elder, in Livy's History of Rome, said this: "Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather - to call things by their names - total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . ." I believe that recent history has proven this to be true, and that giving women the same rights as men was a mistake. Women are ruled by their passions, hormones, and emotions; because of this, they are not suited for power or responsibility. They certainly will not accept responsibility for their actions; no, they always blame men for everything! All we have done via the feminist experiment was prove Cato the Elder 100% right. It's too bad we didn't listen to him...

I have to sign off. It's late, and I need to go to bed. I gave more of an answer than I'd intended, but I hope it's sufficient. If not, then I'll try to render a better answer some time this week. Have a nice night...


Christina said...

I don't understand why you think I'm not in agreement with you.

I make it quite clear what I think about women in positions of power.

Though I think we ARE equal in all senses of utmost importance (spiritual and WORTH), I do think we have different ROLES...EQUAL roles, but DIFFERENT. Neither one less important than the other, though the female one is under the guidance of the male one (that DOESN'T make it inferior - and that the belief that it is is a lie that was handed over by *some* men and fully embraced by feminism).

Just because I say that men have done certain things to jeopardize the worth of women or their wellbeings doesn't mean I'm against them having their rightful place that God created them for.

It means I want them to be CAREFUL about how they get that rightful place back - which means making sure you DON"T jeopardize the worth of the female half of the species the way the women have done the male half.

That's not gonna be easy to do. Somehow, its not wired in us to be fair and balanced to the other side.

The church has ALWAYS failed utterly in that regard - criminalizing women and then men; never balanced. And I don't see the rest of humankind behaving any differently.

I don't understand how my standing up and claiming that men are just as guilty as women in this regard is being "feminist" or "feminist-tainted" thinking. It's common sense, its and embracement of scripture - we've all failed miserably in regards to eachother. To claim differently or to pretend that your side of things is completely innocent of any wrong is a DANGEROUS place to be...and a thinking that will lead to a lot more pain and hurt for all involved than simply acknowledging it and moving forward with the knowledge that you are not incorruptible.

Wonder Woman said...

How come we're EXPECTED to be true to "our roles" when in fact we don't have a choice of what or whom we are born into?

Identity crisis alert!

Why can't a man stay home and raise his children while a woman works outside the home, IF THEY CHOOSE this arrangement?
Why is it the woman's duty to cherish cooking, cleaning, doting on, frilly dressed, emotionally providing for an entire family?
Why is the man IN CHARGE of finances, working outside the home, providing, ...

We ARE equal - we ALL were created in His image, right :)

Christina said...

How come we're EXPECTED to be true to "our roles" when in fact we don't have a choice of what or whom we are born into?

Because God created us what we were on purpose.

I think he has an awful lot of control on which spermy makes it to the egg =p Whether it's y or x is in his complete and total control.

Who knows...that little extra x that your father provided could very well be the chromy that contains the dna that makes you strive for leadership and makes you restless at home...

And yet without that little x, you wouldn't be a woman...

I think the trick here is to TRUST that God gave you the right biological makeup to be Man or Woman.

When it comes to a man staying home and a woman working, I think it messes with the biological traits and common sensically doesn't work nearly as well as the man being the primary breadwinner - simply because pregnancy, labor, and recovery aren't exactly conducive to work (operating under limited experience, but so far not so great). It limits upward mobility in a way that a man doesn't have to worry I sincerely think that our biological makeup says a lot about our roles...

Without kids, I think if anyone stays home full time, whoever's doing it is just being lazy =p

Though most women feel that this limits them in an unfair way, I wonder at why they think that. Sure, they may never have the same access to the top CEO position of a major corporation, but they have a lot more options available to them if they know how to apply themselves.

I've dreamed of teaching myself photography, graphic design, web design and php databases to design websites for people/companies. I've also dreamed of opening my own Ice Cream Shoppe or designing software for teachers or fitness trainers.

Right now, working full time for a corporation doesn't allow for the same flexibility that I could have by working at home (plus anything I invent is techincally owned by my company). I feel trapped and limited to what I can do...

But the idea of being home raising my kids and cooking for my husband opens up a whole world of possibilities to me...

Its just about getting creative.

I'm not 100% from the camp of stay at home over work, but I am 100% for the idea that a woman's FIRST priority is husband and then children. And bosses at work interfere with that order and (in my experience) are known for disrespecting that order.

Bhanu Prasad said...

---Why can't a man stay home and raise his children while a woman works outside the home, IF THEY CHOOSE this arrangement?

Why is it the woman's duty to cherish cooking, cleaning, doting on, frilly dressed, emotionally providing for an entire family?----

Good question. But dig into a bit of science and the answer is evident.

IMO, Men and Women are not clones.
Men, thanks to excess of hormone testosterone, are status seeking and competing creatures. They WILL stay at home and look after children, provided it enhances their social status.

Also, women like "manly" men. They prefer to be romantically involved with dominant males or the ones who possess good genes, which can be passed on to her children.

For an example look at the mate patterns in a group of high school kids. Females flock after emotionless, outgoing and dominant males rather than nerdy, contemplative and emotional ones.

The reason is also economical. Women typically "marry up". It does not make any sense for the high-earning husband to stay at home while the wifey stays outside the home.

Bhanu Prasad said...

First of all it is rubbish to proclaim of exploitation being limited to one gender. If it is so that sex would simply withdraw from
society. As we see from history this has never happened.

Our Ancestors, men and women, had to sacrifice to build this civilization.

Men were forced to be a bread winning slave to the family. In exchange they were gifted with a leadership role with in that institution. As we know from the history, absolute power corrupts.

Men suffered outside the home, and women inside it.

Christina said...

First of all it is rubbish to proclaim of exploitation being limited to one gender

Who here ever said it was? Other than Marky Mark.

Bhanu Prasad said...

--Who here ever said it was? Other than Marky Mark.--

I never accused anyone of that. Please see my reply again.

Regarding MRA's, most of these guys have been flogged by family courts and they find themselves stripped of their earnings and more damningly their own children. There is a vast gulf between feminists and MRA's. Feminists inculcate misandry by ideology, few MRA's resort to misogyny out of a very bitter personal experience.

WHatever may be the reason a blanket hate is not acceptable for any reason.