RE: Misogyny

RE: Misogyny (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

LadyBeckett -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 2:43:40 PM)
quote: The quote on your profile, are you a redhead as well? Absolutely! It's got a bit of silver in it now, but it's still red. lol [;)]

baileythorne -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 2:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas Does this mean that every woman ever born belonged under the dominance and protection of men? No, it doesn't. For some women, it is simply in their nature not to want the protection of men, and to submit to their domination. They want to assert their own dominance in the world. They aspire to something else. There have been women like this throughout history, and they are to be admired, but they are the rare exception. For a women like this, her dominance has no more to do with men than the dominance of a man has to do with women. One of the women you speak of was Queen Elizabeth. She fascinates me. She was a teenager when she came to the throne. She pulled England from an economic pit to be one of the powers of her time. Amazing woman. I read most anything I can find about her. My favorite: "Elizabeth I, Ceo: Strategic Lessons from the Leader Who Built an Empire" by Alan Axelrod. --bailey

Sundew02 -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 2:51:04 PM)
Laughing, well "Miss Carroll" is a close friend of mine in the past couple of years, so still a redhead. Laughing, haven't decided to let mother nature have her way, at least in this one area. Sundew

baileythorne -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 2:52:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: January Thank you, baileythorne! Your post is a wonderful example of why there should be a online collarme book. Why should that gem of experience and insight sink into cyberspace oblivion? January P.S. My perspective on dungeons must be odd. I don't know of any dungeons here in cowboy country, so I associate public play with travel to a major city. While I'm whining, I might as well bring up the fact that we also don't get CBS without cable (unless it's a foggy Colorado day). So that's why there's no CSI for me, Thanatosian. [:(] Thank you :-) May I suggest you consider atending an national convention? They usually have classes during the day, dungeon time at night, and you are guaranteed to make friends. They are all over the country and it makes a very nice vacation. One of the top 3 events in the country, in my opinion, is in Denver in July: Thunder in the Mountains. Possibly we could get a group of singles & couples to meet up there next year. A thought. I attended two years in a row when I was partnered. The only truly pansexual event in the country and I loved the energy. --bailey

baileythorne -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 2:53:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: January Thank you, baileythorne! Your post is a wonderful example of why there should be a online collarme book. Why should that gem of experience and insight sink into cyberspace oblivion? January P.S. My perspective on dungeons must be odd. I don't know of any dungeons here in cowboy country, so I associate public play with travel to a major city. Thank you :-) May I suggest you consider atending an national convention? They usually have classes during the day, dungeon time at night, and you are guaranteed to make friends. They are all over the country and it makes a very nice vacation. One of the top 3 events in the country, in my opinion, is in Denver in July: Thunder in the Mountains. Possibly we could get a group of singles & couples to meet up there next year. A thought. I attended two years in a row when I was partnered. The only truly pansexual event in the country and I loved the energy. --bailey

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/10/2004 8:05:05 AM)
Yes, I think Elizabeth was one. Again, what made her one had nothing to do with men. One of the things that I find most telling about her was her refusal to convert and become a catholic, though she was under quite a bit of duress to do so at a time in England's history when not doing so could get you killed. She was a rare woman. Take care of yourself Leonidas

Sinergy -> RE: Misogyny (8/10/2004 6:32:11 PM)
quote: Aside from the "insignificant" matriachal cultures you mentioned, I would add early Celtic culture which was matriarchal and which has been VERY influential. You might also be surprized to discover that traditional African-American culture is matriarchal as well. Matriarchal cultures tended to be the norm among hunter-gatherer and cultivating peoples who are more in tune with nature and the seasons and worshipped the Mother Goddess, which is many more cultures than the Celts and African cultures. Patriarchal cultures (and the religions they espouse) tended to rise with the development of the nation-state. JM, CBW, BTYG Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Misogyny (8/10/2004 6:39:41 PM)
quote: Yes, I think Elizabeth was one. Again, what made her one had nothing to do with men. I am fascinated by that second sentence. I so completely disagree with it. It completely removes Elizabeth from the system (patriarchal, warlike, high medieval, male dominated society, largely scorned by her father in his quest to have a male heir, etc) she existed in (nurture) and pins the blame for everything she accomplished on her genetic makeup. Of course, half of her genetics came from a man, so... I find it easier to try to avoid ascribing attributes to people based on things like gender, race, etc... Elizabeth 1 was a truly amazing person because of a) her genetics, b) her gender, c) the male dominated society she was brought up in, and d) her upbringing. But that is just me, and I could be wrong. Sinergy

MistressDREAD -> RE: Misogyny (8/10/2004 7:13:57 PM)
HA! You said just what I was thinking Singergy Gawd thats scarry......... it takes two to make one or well it did in Her time anyhow [;)] quote: Ooo! This man has more issues then I thought! ;) I agree 101% LA! But I wouldent have Him any other way.

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/11/2004 10:40:49 PM)
quote: I so completely disagree with it. It completely removes Elizabeth from the system (patriarchal, warlike, high medieval, male dominated society, largely scorned by her father in his quest to have a male heir, etc) she existed in (nurture) and pins the blame for everything she accomplished on her genetic makeup. Well, not quite, I'll clarify. What made her one had nothing to do with any propensity that she may or may not have had for strapping on some leather and dominating a man. Similarly what I have said earlier and elsewhere is that male dominance has nothing to do with women, meaning their propensity to want to dominate women i.e. being a "Dom". Elizabeth displayed dominance in what she did in life in general. It had nothing to do with being a "Domme". I forget that I remember previous threads that I was involved in better than the folks that might be reading. Thanks for pointing out that that was not clear. Take care of yourself Leonidas

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/11/2004 10:59:55 PM)
Some interesting assertions. So if I'm reading you right, what you are saying is that sometime around 10,000 years ago, with the rise of agriculture, we switched from being a female dominant species to one that is dominated by males? Up until then, we were the peace loving bonobos who worshiped the mother godess, had sex, not violence, as the currency of power, and then men managed to game the system by creating a religion and that changed around? I've never heard or read anything remotely like that. Is there something that you have read somewhere that discusses this big shift? I would be fascinated to read it. Are we talking about recorded history here, or someone's speculation about what might have gone on in pre-history based on pagan oral history and legend? I can't think of a single culture, just sitting here, whether it was the the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Mongols, Greeks, Persians, Huns, Saxons, Celts (at least what we know of the celts from Roman accounts), Goths, Romans, Gauls, Norse, even the Jews, any of them that shaped history as we know it, that were anything but pretty damn warrior centric male dominated cultures. Same with just about everything we know about North American Indian hunter-gatherer culture too, with rare exception. The male hunter-warrior societies ruled the tribe. Hunter-gatherer cultures that we've been able to study in modern times are pretty much the same story. There are rare instances of matriarchial societies, but as a general rule, the big fierce guy with the spear rules. Tell me more. I thought I had studied this stuff. Maybe everthing that I think I know is wrong.

Sinergy -> RE: Misogyny (8/12/2004 3:55:32 PM)
quote: I can't think of a single culture, just sitting here, whether it was the the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Mongols, Greeks, Persians, Huns, Saxons, Celts (at least what we know of the celts from Roman accounts), Goths, Romans, Gauls, Norse, even the Jews, any of them that shaped history as we know it, that were anything but pretty damn warrior centric male dominated cultures. What we know about most of the European cultures (goths, visigoths, celts, etc) came from Roman historians. quote: Some interesting assertions. So if I'm reading you right, what you are saying is that sometime around 10,000 years ago, with the rise of agriculture, we switched from being a female dominant species to one that is dominated by males? Up until then, we were the peace loving bonobos who worshiped the mother godess, had sex, not violence, as the currency of power, and then men managed to game the system by creating a religion and that changed around? I've never heard or read anything remotely like that. Is there something that you have read somewhere that discusses this big shift? I would be fascinated to read it. Are we talking about recorded history here, or someone's speculation about what might have gone on in pre-history based on pagan oral history and legend? You are not reading me right. E. O. James, The Cult of the Mother Goddess (1959, repr. 1961) Who rules the tribe (usually by force; e.g. big guy holding a spear) and what one believes the ruling motive force in nature are two different things. JM, CBW, BTYG. Sinergy

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/12/2004 4:05:46 PM)
OK, cool. I found the book. It's 45 smackers at antiquarian. Is it going to describe cultures where women ruled or is it more about the "Great Mother" figures of ancient, and not so ancient (i.e. catholics with the virgin mary) religions? If it is about the latter I know a little about that, but don't see how that makes cultures with religions like that a matriarchy?

NoCalOwner -> RE: Misogyny (8/17/2004 5:05:49 PM)
I can speak to this a bit, since most of my undergrad work was in ancient-medieval European history, and my focus was on Wales. Prior to the dominance of the Indo-Europeans, there was a period of about 40,000 years where much of the art was devoted to one form or another of goddess -- at first they were usually of the "earth mother" sort, later it was more common to find goddesses in forms like snakes or birds. Marija Gimbutas has done a lot of work on this, focusing on southeastern Europe. You might look up some of her stuff, it is all in print and discussed quite a bit online (Google has 8740 matches for her name). While this doesn't prove that these societies were matriarchal, the evidence overall does tend to point in that direction. These were societies of gatherers and farmers, they were focused pretty heavily on religion, they were static rather than nomadic, and they had few, if any, weapons of war, just the occasional hunting weapon. It is not very surprising that one would find matriarchy in cultures which had not yet connected sex and pregnancy, since it would seem to them that females had sole responsibility for the creation of new life. Between 5000 BC and the catastrophic incursions of the "People of the Sea" around 1100-1200 BC, most of these cultures were invaded and subjugated. In Europe, the invaders were Indo-Europeans, who came in waves out of what is now southern Russia. While it's hard to make completely accurate generalizations about the Indo-Europeans, overall they tended towards patriarchy, moved around quite a bit more than the older peoples (they were seriously into horses, which the earlier folks were not), were more pastoral than agricultural, and were more warlike. While they did subjugate Europe (and most of India), they did not usually wipe out the indigenous populations, but rather assimilated them and their cultures. They were a 3-caste society -- priests, warriors and free property owners (there were also slaves, but that was an individual condition unrelated to caste), so there was no reason that members of other cultures could not be fit into the 3rd rank of their society. The Celts wandered out of Russia an into what are now Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Austria and the Netherlands, then later moved into the British Isles. There they encountered (and assimilated) a few different societies, in a process that lasted a couple of thousand years. In many costal areas, they found short, dark-skinned people with roundish heads who had migrated from the Mediterranean (possibly Malta), who were goddess worshippers, and who seem to have probably been a more advanced civilization. These may well have been the designers of Stonehenge and the like. In Scotland they ran into the Picts, who were clearly matriarchal, and who passed property down from parents to daughter, so that the King of the Picts was never born into the position, but rather by virtue of being married to the daughter of the last King and Queen. (You can still find this tradition in modern Scotland, where baronies, clan chieftainships and other titles regularly pass through female lines.) By the time we get to the well-documented historical period, with formally codified national laws, etc., we find that the Celts are, in Britain at least, a fairly egalitarian society. While it's well known that Britain was defended from the Romans by their tall, redheaded queen Boudica and her daughters, it's remarkable that after 850 years of Roman and Christian influence women were still allowed to own property in their own right (including male slaves, I would add), and were legally roughly the equals of men. You may find out more about the legal status of women in Wales (as of about 940 AD) in the codex of Hywel Dda, King of Deheubarth (and, coincidentally, one of my ancestors). Oh, and you're right, the Celts could be plenty warlike. Their women sometimes fought too, as with Queen Boudica, and some of their goddesses were absolutely bloodthirsty when it came to war. You did NOT want to lose the favor of the terrifying Morrigan ("Great Queen") as you were headed off to battle! An extremely toned-down version of her survived as Morgan la Fey, who was still nobody you'd ever want to fuck with. Hope someone or another find that helpful... P.S. -- Oh, forgot to mention... the Celts were also much less patriarchal than most of the other Indo-Europeans right from the beginning. In bronze age Switzerland, for example, goddess statues predominate for quite a while (did you know that a horned goddess predated the horned god?) before the mix becomes roughly equal between gods and goddesses. This isn't much of a surprise, since the Irish considered their deities to be the "People of Danu," the same mother goddess who the Danube river, and dozens of sites scattered across Europe were named after.

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/17/2004 5:26:52 PM)
Interesting stuff, NoCalOwner. Some of which I knew, some of which I did not. I wonder a little about whether the folks before the invasion of the Indo-Europeans were any less pugnacious than those who came later, though. from 40,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago "weapons of war" wouldn't look like much by our standards. a rock or a sharpened stick, or a club would probably have sufficed, no? I'm curious about the "not connecting sex with pregnancy" part too. What makes us think that would be so? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm always curious about why we think like we do about what went on pre-history. I knew about Boudica. Joan of Arc is another example of a woman leading an army in battle that came much later. Is the thinking that women warriors were common among the celts, or like Joan, a rare exception? I have read Roman accounts about the celts, and there was an awful lot about how fierce the men were, but not a great deal, as I recall anyway, about women warriors. I understand about matrilineage in terms of property. There are a number of examples of it. The folks in the San Blas islands have a similar arrangement, but the tribal chief is still a man. Spanish common law (where we get the notion of "community property" in california), also gave women property rights that they didn't have elsewhere.

MaitresseEden -> RE: Misogyny (8/18/2004 7:43:06 AM)
I can't resist sharing some of my favorite Quotes which are so apptly suited for this thread. Ms. Eden The day will come when men will recognize woman as his peer, not only at the fireside, but in councils of the nation. Then, and not until then, will there be the perfect comradeship, the ideal union between the sexes that shall result in the highest development of the race. Susan B. Anthony ----------- I became a feminist as an alternative to becoming a misogynist Sally Kempton ----------- We still live in a world in which a significant fraction of people, including women, believe that a woman belongs and wants to belong exclusively in the home. Rosalyn Sussman ----------- The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: 'It's a girl ! Shirley Chisholm. ----------- Seeing that the religious superstitions of women perpetuate their bondage more than all other adverse influences, I feel impelled to reiterate my demands for justice, liberty, and equality in the Church as well as the State Elizabeth Cady Stanton ----------- Well behaved women rarely make history. Laura Conners ----------- I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute Rebecca West ----------- When man goes on a date, he wonders if he’s going to get lucky. A woman already knows Frederick Ryder ------------ Men are taught to apologize for their weaknesses, women for their strengths Lois Wyse ------------ "We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." Elizabeth Cady Stanton ----------- It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that virginity could be a virtue Voltaire ----------- An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex Aldous Huxley ----------- All the decent people, male and female, are feminists. The only people who are not feminists are those who believe that women are inherently inferior or undeserving of the respect and opportunity afforded men. Either you are a feminist or you are a sexist/misogynist. There is no box marked "other". Ani DiFranco ----------- In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a misogynist Gloria Steinem ----------- However sugarcoated and ambiguous, every form of authoritarianism must start with a belief in some group's greater right to power, whether that right is justified by sex, race, class, religion, or all four. However far it may expand, the progression inevitably rests on unequal power and airtight roles within the family. Gloria Steinem ------------ To be successful, a woman has to be much better at her job than a man. Golda Meir ----------- The true republic: men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less Susan B. Anthony ----------- I'd like to know that my daughters would have the freedom if they find themselves in situations. No government is going to jump in and make decisions for them. It's outrageous. They have no place in that position. There is no question, it should be a woman's choice. It is not a religious thing, it's not a political thing, it's very simple—it's just a right, so don't fuck with it. Meredith Baxter ----------- We have done almost everything in pairs since Noah, except govern. And the world has suffered for it. Bella Abzug ----------- Women will not simply be mainstreamed into the polluted stream. Women are changing the stream, making it clean and green and safe for all -- every gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, age, and ability. Bella Abzug ----------- Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel." Bella Abzug ----------- When a man gets up to speak, people listen than look. When a woman gets up, people look; then if they like what they see, they listen. Pauline Frederick ----------- Nail polish or false eyelashes isn't politics. If you have good politics, what you wear is irrelevant. I don't take dictation from the pig-o-cratic style setters who say I should dress like a middle-aged colored lady. My politics don't depend on whether my tits are in or out of a bra. Florence Kennedy ----------- "And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power--but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers." Robin Morgan ----------- "I believe that our culture goes back to the ancient Greeks and to several other societies whose roots lie in this Greek civilization. There is one thing that these various cultures have in common: they are built on a very hierarchical system that has excluded women from power and influence. They developed an increasing competition for material gains, producing societies that became more and more void and empty. I think this is one of the causes of the drive toward self-destruction." Christa Wolfe ----------- "And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference. Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime ----------- Christianity has done a great deal for love by making a sin of it. – Anatole France (1844-1924) French writer. Le Jardin D' Epicure ----------- Sex concentrates on what is on the outside of the individual. It’s funny because I think it’s better inside. Alex Walsh ----------- Of the delights of this world, man cares most for sexual intercourse, yet he has left it out of his heaven. Mark Twain ----------- And lest we forget those who haven’t a granule of enlightenment"Rail as they will against discrimination, women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measure of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of western capitalism... The mama bird builds the nest." Pat Buchanan ----------- The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women... It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become Lesbians. Pat Robertson ----------- Did you ever notice the people who are the most adamantly against abortions are people who are so ugly you wouldn’t want to touch them in the first place. George Carlin ----------- Peggy - “Tell me you love me, Al.” Al – “I love football, I love beer, let’s not cheapen the meaning of the word.” Al Bundy -----------

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/18/2004 8:55:46 AM)
Thank you for illustrating my point. Most of the folks that you quote have the "agree with our agenda or you are a misogynist" attitude that I was talking about. Any notion that men and women might naturally gravitate toward different roles is misogynistic, sexist heresy, even though nobody seems to dispute that the drives, motivations, communication styles etc. of the sexes are very different. That can't possibly be some inate difference, because the very notion violates our version of the truth. The truth that we are all born androgenous. The truth is that it is only unenlightened social conditioning and oppression that makes us different at all. I grew to my size and strength and agressiveness becasue I was expected to. I would have been much smaller, and weaker, and more nurturing if I had been the progeny of more enlightened parents. My sons want to try to knock dad off his feet, and pit their strength against his, and my daughter doesn't, because she's oppressed. That woman over there would have been far larger, and more agressive, and less emotional and prone to nurturing if she had been encouraged in that direction. Yeah, sure, if you say so. Does a woman's desire that the men in her life to be strong, and lead betray weakness, or even a hatred of her own sex as your "enlightened" quotes above suggest? What if she is just expressing her own desire, even if it's contrary to what Ms. Steinem and the other illuminati have decided to be the truth of the matter? There are folks, believe it or not, who see your "enlightened" feminist ideals as the meanest form of oppression. It's a grey, dismal world where natural drives and desires should inspire nothing more than guilt and self-loathing if they contradict the "enlightened" view. There are women out there who celebrate male strength and leadership. There are men out there who celebrate femine softness and grace. They neither hate themselves, nor one another, even though the illuminati believe that they should. They are just following what makes them happy, which, for some odd reason, they value above being "correct". That's probably why I, a dominant heterosexual male, am rather proud to be considered to be one step away from a serial rapist by anyone who would think so.

MaitresseEden -> RE: Misogyny (8/18/2004 10:19:17 AM)
quote: Thank you for illustrating my point. Most of the folks that you quote have the "agree with our agenda or you are a misogynist" attitude that I was talking about. And you know this how? Have you studied their writings extensivly? While I will be the first to say that all individuals have an agenda.. one of equality, I do not see desiring such as a negative. quote: Any notion that men and women might naturally gravitate toward different roles is misogynistic, sexist heresy, even though nobody seems to dispute that the drives, motivations, communication styles etc. of the sexes are very different. Well you could argue "Tabula Rosa" and that we are all blank slates, however as a behaviorist I would say that are base drive is for survival and that learned behavior creates our motiviations, We as humans are socialized to think, feel, and believe and ascribe to certain behaviors because it makes our survival easier. quote: That can't possibly be some inate difference, because the very notion violates our version of the truth. The truth that we are all born androgenous. The truth is that it is only unenlightened social conditioning and oppression that makes us different at all . Our version of Truth?.. or your version of truth? To be born androgenous we would be born without any sex diffenences. Gender and Sex are not always congruent. Gender is what is between ones ears and sex is what is between ones legs. Sex Roles are often socialized and become attributed to gender roles however they are not always congruent with a person's inate natural disposition. Countless numbers of studies have been done on this, to which I'd be happy to provide sources for. quote: I grew to my size and strength and agressiveness becasue I was expected to. I would have been much smaller, and weaker, and more nurturing if I had been the progeny of more enlightened parents. My sons want to try to knock dad off his feet, and pit their strength against his, and my daughter doesn't, because she's oppressed. That woman over there would have been far larger, and more agressive, and less emotional and prone to nurturing if she had been encouraged in that direction. Yeah, sure, if you say so. You miss the point entirely.. you can be whomever you choose to be or grow to be if your not limited by other peoples ideology and dogma being forced upon you.. by force I mean the making it a maintstream value of acceptable behavior. quote: Does a woman's desire that the men in her life to be strong, and lead betray weakness, or even a hatred of her own sex as your "enlightened" quotes above suggest? What if she is just expressing her own desire, even if it's contrary to what Ms. Steinem and the other illuminati have decided to be the truth of the matter? I highly doubt that Ms. Steinem would be party to the "illuminati" When unable to defend a position people often are quick to label it a great conspiracy. I suppose you believe the "homosexual agenda" and the "feminist agenda" are all vast conspiracys meant to overthrow the mass of lemmings roaming the earth. quote: There are folks, believe it or not, who see your "enlightened" feminist ideals as the meanest form of oppression. It's a grey, dismal world where natural drives and desires should inspire nothing more than guilt and self-loathing if they contradict the "enlightened" view . Herein lies the heart of the great debate... Is it oppressive to put the shoe on the other foot? It is oppressive to treat men with the same irreverance that they have treated women for centuries? While I do not subscribe to male bashing nor do I hate men, I think that certain behaviors should be illuminated and not be taken for granted as thier biological birthright. It is a grey dismal world when woman's natural drives and desires ( whatever they may be) are suppressed, and dictated by men. On that point I will concurr.. quote: There are women out there who celebrate male strength and leadership. There are men out there who celebrate femine softness and grace. They neither hate themselves, nor one another, even though the illuminati believe that they should . You prove my point right here in that you equate strength and leadership solely with males. and Softness and grace with females.. Why must you limit your atttibution of these characteristics to a biological sex. Why can't either Sex, be either or all of these attributes. It is this limitation that is oppressive. Since you keep bringing up the illuminati it is obvious that you feel that somehow this is some conspiracy by the science and the church. I'm curious as to how you make that connection. quote: They are just following what makes them happy, which, for some odd reason, they value above being "correct". That's probably why I, a dominant heterosexual male, am rather proud to be considered to be one step away from a serial rapist by anyone who would think so. So in your opinion, people should NOT follow what makes them happy, (Now there is an Oppressive thought).... What do you reckon that they do.. live in misery? I see no reason to comment on the serial rapist comparison as it would be to lengthy to to taking the time to explain the context in which it was originally written. In Peace, Ms.Eden

NoCalOwner -> RE: Misogyny (8/18/2004 11:03:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas Interesting stuff, NoCalOwner. Some of which I knew, some of which I did not. I wonder a little about whether the folks before the invasion of the Indo-Europeans were any less pugnacious than those who came later, though. from 40,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago "weapons of war" wouldn't look like much by our standards. a rock or a sharpened stick, or a club would probably have sufficed, no? To some extent, yes. A pike with a metal-shod shaft would distinguish itself as a weapon of war, as would a sword, but a generic spear would be hard to call one way or another. As one trained heavily as a historian but only minimally as an anthropologist, I am mostly relying (rather uncritically) on the opinions of those who have studied prehistory more extensively. For example, Marija Gimbutas in an interview: "...in old Europe there were no weapons - no daggers, no swords. There were just weapons for hunting." (http://www.levity.com/mavericks/gimbut.htm) quote: I'm curious about the "not connecting sex with pregnancy" part too. What makes us think that would be so? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm always curious about why we think like we do about what went on pre-history. With prehistory, nothing will ever be 100% clear cut. The consensus among anthropologists seems to be that the sentiments of the period when almost all depictions of deities were of the fertility goddess type (40,000 BC - 5000 BC) were due to this connection not having been made yet, but proof is impossible. In pastoral societies (like the Indo-Europeans), where selective breeding of livestock would have made the male genetic contribution clear, gods begin appearing at an early date, prior to 10,000 BC. These societies were mostly male-dominated, and justification for male power was made by swinging to the opposite (false) extreme, declaring that the woman was just an inert vessel, and that the man alone determined the genetics of the offspring. This teaching is documented from prior to 500 BC, and was such a stubborn belief that Darwin commented on its survival in his own time. But Australian aboriginies and a few other cultures have stubbornly claimed that there was no connection between sex and childbirth even into the 20th century, so one can't make any universal generality. You can find a tiny bit on this topic at: http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/socialeccltheology/TheGod-ideaoftheAncientsOrSexinReligion/chap1.html quote: I knew about Boudica. Joan of Arc is another example of a woman leading an army in battle that came much later. Is the thinking that women warriors were common among the celts, or like Joan, a rare exception? I have read Roman accounts about the celts, and there was an awful lot about how fierce the men were, but not a great deal, as I recall anyway, about women warriors. It was probably an exception, but we have no reason to think that it was a terribly rare one. There is a Roman account of the attack on Mona (Anglesey) by Claudius' legions which is pretty interesting. It barely qualifies as a military engagement, as the scene of the attack was a holy site, occupied by members of the clerical caste. Just the same, we are told that the occupants stood on the beach and attempted to repel the invaders by means of magic, and that the frightening defenders were made up of both genders, so there doesn't seem to have been any rule that women should be kept out of armed conflicts. In 1745, Colonel Anne Farquharson-MacKintosh gathered 800 of her clansfolk and led them into battle at Culloden in support of Prince Charlie (despite the fact that her husband was fighting for King George). Seems to have been a pretty durable tradition. quote: I understand about matrilineage in terms of property. There are a number of examples of it. The folks in the San Blas islands have a similar arrangement, but the tribal chief is still a man. In Scotland a woman can be a clan chief in her own right. If a chieftain has a legitimate male heir, the title will almost always pass to the son, but if he has only daughters, the title will usually not go to some male cousin, but rather to the daughter. In the past, this rule was often circumvented, either by the male chief (who lacked male heirs) claiming the right to choose his successor (who would be male, most often his son-in-law), or by claiming that the chieftaincy could only be confirmed by agreement of the clan members (who, as with the English population and Henry VIII's daughters, might be claimed to be unwilling to follow a woman into battle). A glass ceiling if you will. Since 1745, military command hasn't been a major part of a clan chief's duties, so circumvention of female inheritance rules has gradually diminished. My mother's clan is an example of this, the current chieftain is Dame Flora McLeod of McLeod. With inheritances which entitle one to property and/or a seat in the House of Lords, ambiguity in inheritance rules was considered intolerable, so women have always been allowed to inherit Scottish titles (which dated from before 1745). Scottish women currently in Lords in their own right are the Countesses of Mar, Dysart, Loudon and Sutherland, and the Baronesses of Herries, Saltoun of Abernethy, and Kinloss. There are also a number of Scottish "minor baronies" in the hands of women.

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/18/2004 11:49:51 AM)
quote: And you know this how? Have you studied their writings extensivly? While I will be the first to say that all individuals have an agenda.. one of equality, I do not see desiring such as a negative. I have studied them a bit, actually, but I hardly need to. Just look at your own quotes. If you have read them extensively, I can't imagine how you would think that all of the women that you quote have "equality" as their only goal. They don't just want equality, they want sameness, which isn't the same thing. If "equality" means that you believe that men and women are equally suited to every role, then I'm a sexist and a misogynist. We aren't. Men, from the time that they are boys (and when I say men I mean the fat part of the bell curve, not the marilyn mansons of the world) are more assertive, agressive and prone to try to establish physical dominance than are girls. Yes, you can shame and condition it out of them, but that's what they are. Even feminist proponents of single-sex education for girls understand and acknowledge this. Put the girls in separate classrooms is their argument, so that they can learn to be assertive without being oppressed by the more assertive and agressive boys. quote: Well you could argue "Tabula Rosa" and that we are all blank slates, however as a behaviorist I would say that are base drive is for survival and that learned behavior creates our motiviations, We as humans are socialized to think, feel, and believe and ascribe to certain behaviors because it makes our survival easier. I'm sorry, I'm not a behaviorist. I'm not familliar with the "Tabula Rosa" (red slate?). Maybe you mean the Tabula Rasa (blank slate)? Actually you just argued for the notion of Tabula Rasa (behavior is learned, not inate). I'm somewhat on the side of biological determinism, which makes it a damn good thing that I'm not an academic. I would never get tenure with that kind of blasphemy. quote: I highly doubt that Ms. Steinem would be party to the "illuminati" You ever met the woman? I have. She went to Smith College, where a good frend of mine is also an alum. I've seen her speak to the local Smith club here a couple of times, and been around the receptions. If you don't believe that she thinks she has a better intellectual pot to piss in, you really should try to meet her. As far as she's concerned, there are women who think like she does, and then there are ignorant women. quote: However sugarcoated and ambiguous, every form of authoritarianism must start with a belief in some group's greater right to power, whether that right is justified by sex, race, class, religion, or all four. However far it may expand, the progression inevitably rests on unequal power and airtight roles within the family. Gloria Steinem She says this like it's a bad thing. Yes, I'm being fascetious, but not entirely. When I was in the military, there was talk about letting women into elite combat units for the sake of "equality". My only problem with that is that our enemies don't. I look around me every day at slump-shouldered, soft-middled, fat assed men who shuffle around looking at their shoes without the slightest hint of any masculine pride and I worry some. These guys have definately bought into the notion that they are equal to women, but our enemies have yet to do that. History has shown clearly that civilizations that get soft and self-indulgent, and delude themselves with high sounding notions like "equality" are often supplanted by harder, more agressive, more spartan ones. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch sometimes. If you have the choice of betting your life on an equal man, or an unequal man when the shit hits the fan, take a bit of friendly advice. Go with the unequal man. quote: Women will not simply be mainstreamed into the polluted stream. Women are changing the stream, making it clean and green and safe for all -- every gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, age, and ability. Yeah, Bella, you go ahead and do that, and when I get back from defending you from folks who live in societies ruled by unequal, agressive men who'd like nothing more than to rape the hell out of you just to humilliate me, do please let me know how it's going. Ms. Abzug is espousing a very feminine point of view. It's a beautiful, soft, point of view full of grace and nurturing intention, and its a point of view that needs to be there, but it's a point of view that our men would adopt at the peril of us all, I'm afraid. We aren't equal. We are different, and we need to be. quote: "And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference. Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime Is this quote all about equality, or is its aim to create a generation of American women suspect of the intentions of their men, and a generation of American men who loathe their own instincts? If you are dominant, and heterosexual, and male, you are in fact a serial rapist, it's just a matter of degree. Uh huh. The "All American Crime"? Give me a fucking break. Ms. Griffin must not get out much. I've been offered a 16 year old girl (to keep mind you, not to use) in a market in Morocco for the equivelent of 250 bucks. Ms. Griffin needs to wake the hell up and show a little appeciation. Of all the cry-baby, self-indulgent whiney ass crap that there is, this is about the worst. You see no agenda beyond equality here? That's too bad. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but people who think that they believe in "feminism" really should read some of the writings of these women that you quote. quote: When unable to defend a position people often are quick to label it a great conspiracy. You mean like the "vast right wing consipracy" that was out to prove that Bill Clinton was getting a hummer in the oval office. Yeah, I've seen disingenuous people try to do what you are talking about. Of course, those folks are high principaled. They have no agenda. They are only trying to protect us from ourselves. quote: I suppose you believe the "homosexual agenda" and the "feminist agenda" are all vast conspiracys meant to overthrow the mass of lemmings roaming the earth. No, I believe that an agenda is just that, and yes, feminists and gays have them. So do republicans and libertarians. An agenda just means that you want to move the social order in some direction that appeals to you. Agendas are furthered by various intellectual arguments (and bullying), as with your quote from Ms. Griffin above. If you want to figure out what someone's agenda is, just look at their rhetoric. It will show you in which direction they would like to move your opinion. In Ms. Griffin's case, she would like anyone who happens to be hetro, male, and dominant to see himself as a rapist, and for women to see him similarly. If you ask yourself how that serves the agenda of "equality" I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with an answer. Her agenda is to outcast men who assert dominance from the social order. That isn't the same thing as arguing for equal opportunity. What it is doing is trying to soften men up so that women can compete in situations that might require assertiveness or agression. Oops. I was rather dominant there.... hmmm.... and I am heterosexual..... and a man.... gee, I really feel guilty and ashamed now. If women want to compete as equals (and believe me, I know some of them can) they need not do this. They should just step right up and compete, not try to create a generation of neutered lap-dog men.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02