RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias

RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (Full Version)

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

Message

realwhiteknight -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/23/2010 9:42:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight Let's keep in mind he only meant in U.S. society were things set up that way, and it was simply an example of a highly unethical, institutionalized structure within a society, that was not a reflection of the natural order of things. He wasn't summarizing a historical, global study of slavery. You speak for crazyml now do you? Perhaps you are psychic or could it be you are his mother? I rather think the the lad is quite capable of speakling for himself especially as I fail to find any reference to show he, crazyml this is, was indeed referring to U.S. Society. Perhaps too you fail to recognise that part of a summary of a historical global study of slavery will show far more about the history and development of the slave trade in the U.S. Just my views and take on this matter. I shall await for crazyml to reply when he is able and illuminate us. His point was obvious as anything; I mentioned this in order to try and avoid a flame war over slavery though. He was using an example to illustrate a point. Also, I was being a bit sarcastic. Your point was exactly I was trying to get away from: there was no talk of the history of slavery, he simply mentioned slavery being set up in our society to explain that something can EXIST within society and yet not be ethical nor the 'natural order of things'. You seem to be missing his point.

jujubeeMB -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/23/2010 9:53:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight His point was obvious as anything; I mentioned this in order to try and avoid a flame war over slavery though. He was using an example to illustrate a point. Yep. That is incredibly clear.

jujubeeMB -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/23/2010 9:59:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB I actually totally buy that for individuals. I think, in some ways, that's the essence of a really deep, 24/7 submission: the discovery that your rightful place is under the hand of whomever has brought you willingly to that place. But the problem with being anti-feminist is that they are not just speaking about themselves, they're dragging me and every other woman on earth into it too. I didn't consent to be considered inferior by anyone, and any woman who believes me to be because of her own personal wants and desires is doing so against my will. I've witnessed an anti-feminine variant as well. Where the softer elements of womanhood are derided. And once again it is coming from women and directed to other women. All submissive. How you can possibly be both is baffling but I suppose that doesn't matter. I would have to do more in depth study to determine if the backlash has actually created women that have a hidden dislike of their own gender. I think it's a fascinating thing too. Women are very cruel to women. But I suppose I'm a bit biased on behalf of feminists because I haven't actually seen femininity derided like you have - I wouldn't stand for that either. It all seems really basic to me: no one can make a massive statement about a group based on gender, race, sexual orientation or any other category. You just can't, because we're all individuals, with as many variations as can possibly be imagined.

realwhiteknight -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/23/2010 10:25:03 PM)
quote: It all seems really basic to me: no one can make a massive statement about a group based on gender, race, sexual orientation or any other category. You just can't, because we're all individuals, with as many variations as can possibly be imagined. Always, my first and biggest argument when I hear someone be a bit prejudiced. [:)][:)][:)] A basic rule of thumb for life.

crazyml -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 1:19:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius I think you ought to study history more. Africans enslaving Africans may be the original slaves and owners if, as is expected, some form of slavery goes back into Paleolithic and earlier times. It could pre-date Homo Sapiens but I have no proof of that. It certainly predates written history by millennia. Oh....by the way...the last legal slave owning country in the world was in Africa (Ethiopia if I remember correctly) and it was black Africans enslaving black Africans. It wasn't even an Arab or North African country. Snide attempts at white and North American bashing just won't work on this subject. You have your facts skewed by the lies which have been told about slavery for the last couple of centuries and especially the last 50-75 years. Be well.... Malkinius Apologies for the delay in responding - occasioned by my going to bed. Oh, you can never study enough history! I agree completely. I'm really sorry, but you misunderstood my point. I see where the misunderstanding lies and it's entirely my fault (although it does seem as if several other readers got it straight away, but please don't regard this as a reflection on your comprehension or intelligence but more my lack of clarity). When I say "Not so long ago, society was 'set up' so that Africans could be taken from their countries and made into slaves", I don't mean to say that people decided it was ok to take slaves not long ago - I mean that "Society is set up that way..." was one of the excuses people used for its continued acceptance. I mean - what sort of stupid fucking idiot would believe that slavery was only invented in the 1700's! Sheesh! Thanks for adding the historical extras, as they go to support my point I'm particularly grateful. Common excuses for slavery, treating females as chattels, and stoning gays to death are "Society was set up that way", "That's what we've been doing for millennia". An apologist for slavery might even take your excellent historical points and say "Well slavery wasn't our idea! They've been doing it for 1000's of years". So I'm sure you can see that I wasn't making any attempt to make a snide comment about America. I'm glad I was able to clear this up for you. But again, I'm bound to say that "Well slavery was started by the Africans" would be a pretty fucking poor justification for slavery - But I know you're not the kind of stupid ass who would use that argument. I'd like to, respond to one of your comments in particular - quote: It could pre-date Homo Sapiens but I have no proof of that. This is pretty "out-there" as a theory, since most anthropoligists believe that hunter gatherer societies weren't capable of supporting organised slave taking, to to argue that it predates Homo Sapiens is either brave or foolish. I'd really like to know what you base this theory of yours on - If you could make a strong case, it would earn you a PHD (or another one) in a flash. I presume you've a background in Anthropology?

crazyml -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 1:23:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear G'day Malkinius mate, Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the slave trade into the Caribbean Islands and South America well established by the Spanish, French and later the British at about the same time it was established in the US.. Don't have time to research it at the moment but it sticks in my mind that it was.. I think what we see so often is that the focus is on US thingies where as there is a whole world out here.... Hello IronBear, I'm sure you're right, but as I've explained that wasn't the point - I wasn't making any point about any particular country, just the fact that "Oh its just the way society is set up" was used as an excuse for it.

IronBear -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 1:25:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight His point was obvious as anything; I mentioned this in order to try and avoid a flame war over slavery though. He was using an example to illustrate a point. Also, I was being a bit sarcastic. Your point was exactly I was trying to get away from: there was no talk of the history of slavery, he simply mentioned slavery being set up in our society to explain that something can EXIST within society and yet not be ethical nor the 'natural order of things'. You seem to be missing his point. It matters not if his point was as obvious as anything, I do find it offensive when someone takes it into their head to respond for another explaining what someone meant. Had you stated that you think this or that was what a poster may have been alluding to I would have said nothing but to bull your way in as you did is just plain bad manners. I seriously doubt that a flame war would have erupted although with your comments, it may well do so. I shall simply await and see what outcome happens. Again you state "he was using an example to illustrate a point" if that was so jolly obvious then why hammer it if every one can see it? Seems rather pointless wouldn't you say. If it wasn't obvious and this is just your opinion then again you are making statements on behalf of another. No I haven't and will not go back to re-read the posts for to be honest they are not that important to me especially as they have no reference to my history. I'm simply enjoying an interesting thread. I may well have missed his point but if I did it was because it wasn't particularly clear and there were points which did not gel with me. Most times I just make a note and do my own research if I believe it to be of sufficient importance. Just as I posted a question to Malkinius regarding the timing of the Spanish, French and British aspects of slavery in the Caribbean because in my opinion he probably has the answer at his finger tips and if not there is no loss...None of this is particularly relevant when I simply called you out on what I consider, your rudeness.

realwhiteknight -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 1:46:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight His point was obvious as anything; I mentioned this in order to try and avoid a flame war over slavery though. He was using an example to illustrate a point. Also, I was being a bit sarcastic. Your point was exactly I was trying to get away from: there was no talk of the history of slavery, he simply mentioned slavery being set up in our society to explain that something can EXIST within society and yet not be ethical nor the 'natural order of things'. You seem to be missing his point. It matters not if his point was as obvious as anything, I do find it offensive when someone takes it into their head to respond for another explaining what someone meant. There are many people in this world who find it offensive that someone takes it into their head to respond to anything. We now have had both the poster himself explain that he meant the same thing I said he did - in 2 separate posts, no less- as well as another poster who agreed beforehand that his meaning was 'pretty clear'. This isn't that difficult. I don't care what you thought about a flame war erupting over slavery, because I thought differently.

crazyml -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 2:15:40 AM)
IronBear, You're right, I evidently didn't make my point clearly. I do hope my explanation has clarified things. I think you're overreacting just a tad though. I don't think it's rude to post an opinion or a comment to the effect that someone has been misunderstood. You're a perfectly robust and able contributor to these boards, but if I thought someone had misunderstood you (even if it was in the unlikely event that you'd not made yourself clear) I'd have no problem at all pointing that out. And I wouldn't regard it as rudeness at all.

Elisabella -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 2:18:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear G'day Malkinius mate, Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the slave trade into the Caribbean Islands and South America well established by the Spanish, French and later the British at about the same time it was established in the US.. Don't have time to research it at the moment but it sticks in my mind that it was.. I think what we see so often is that the focus is on US thingies where as there is a whole world out here.... No, that didn't happen at the same time. Slavery was institutionalized in the United States in 1776. Prior to that it was done by the Spanish, French, English, etc. [:)]

crazyml -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 2:26:13 AM)
Malkinius, quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius This makes a few of the responses so far both amusing and pathetic in their, for the so called dominants who are uttering them, slavish devotion to lies and their submission to the will of the liars that makes it so for me. Since we're all for clarity on this thread, would you mind pointing out which of the responses so far have been "amusing and pathetic", which ones exhibit "a slavish devotion to lies" and what it is that makes you conclude (as I'm bound to infer from your "so called dominants" phrase) which dominants you think are "bogus"? In the spirit of discussion, it's important we all understand each other, and my current level of misunderstanding might lead an observer who didn't know you well to conclude that you were too cowardly to confront these people directly.

NorthernGent -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 2:27:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine Greetings, I would like to have a constructive discussion on the current wave of anti-feminism within the BDSM community. While I'm not advocating either side, I've noticed a peculiar bias among its female proponents. Ironically their derision is directed towards the submissive woman that embraces feminism on some level. To the degree where her supposed behavior towards dominant men - which renders him trod upon or victimized - is heavily denounced. Strangely enough, the identical acts when performed by the dominant male towards a submissive woman are lauded. I'm left to wonder if the root behind their disgust is truly indicative of their beliefs regarding feminism and its affect on men as a whole, or relates to attributes perceived in other submissive persons that they deem unacceptable and inappropriate. Q: Have you noticed a similar bias in the behavioral differences between the roles and sexes? And if so, what is your opinion? As always, I look forward to your feedback. ~porcelaine Perhaps it's my reading comprehension or a flaw in the springs and mechanisms of my mind.......being frank...I'm not grasping the following: a) The nature of the 'anti-feminism' that you're encountering. b) How this relates to submission and/or opinions offered by either gender/role. As a side note.....during the last feminism thread....it was noticeable that any attempt to contrast (as well as compare) the principles of feminism and submission.....wasn't appreciated. And I arrived at the conclusion that there are a fair few people round here who are vested solely in having their opinions reinforced...to the extent that they do not want to discuss other possibilities. Perhaps that's the answer.....many people will stand rigidly behind their ideas...as they are bound up with identity and self....whereas others are more fluid with their opinions and place value on learning......feminist....anti-feminist...or otherwise.

crazyml -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 2:30:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Slavery was institutionalized in the United States in 1776. Prior to that it was done by the Spanish, French, English, etc. [:)] That's easily explained, as those of you who know a great deal more about history than I do will confirm, since the USA didn't actually exist as a nation-state till 1776 (July the 4th I believe!). Again, for sensitive sorts - this is not a snarky remark, it's a factual statement. But in order to really really remove any doubt - I wasn't making a point about any particular nation, just a general point about how arguments along the lines of "that's just the way things are" or "have been for a long time" are explanations not justifications. [Edit to add...] Oh! And my apologies - you were absolutely right, my figures for income inequality in the west were horridly out of whack. I did post figures from Wikipedia and an Institute of management survey that showed the percentage to be 12% generally but higher for senior management positions (a little over 20%).

realwhiteknight -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 2:31:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml IronBear, You're right, I evidently didn't make my point clearly. I do hope my explanation has clarified things. I think you're overreacting just a tad though. I don't think it's rude to post an opinion or a comment to the effect that someone has been misunderstood. You're a perfectly robust and able contributor to these boards, but if I thought someone had misunderstood you (even if it was in the unlikely event that you'd not made yourself clear) I'd have no problem at all pointing that out. And I wouldn't regard it as rudeness at all. Thanks for your clarification on where you stand. I wouldn't mind at all if you pointed out that I had misunderstood your point, fyi.[:)]

Malkinius -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 3:18:52 AM)
Greetings Jeffff.... quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff That is a rather narrow definition of Feminism. There are at least four identified waves of feminism and no, I had nothing to do with creating those labels. Actually, I was mostly talking about political correctness, not feminism there. The later waves were part of the pc movement and I think some of their leaders helped create it but I do not claim to be an expert in the history of either. Be well... Malkinius

Malkinius -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 3:52:02 AM)
Greetings realwhiteknight.... quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight True, Domi. I have to say, the concept of slavery pre-dating H. sapiens is almost laughable. (Julia should weigh in on this, as we were all discussing primate behavior and her experiences digging in a cramped pit in 95% heat for grad school on another thread). I certainly imagine the occasional kidnapping of an odd member of another group, or even battles between small tribes of pre- H Sapiens (H erectus, H habilis and even Neanderthals under some categorizations) but all individuals living in the early environment would be much more invested in pure survival than trying to capture/enslave others especially when it carried such a great risk to themselves. Even if some were added to the group for breeding or social purposed, to add to a dying population for example, those captured would have assimilated for survival and could have not properly been referred to as 'slaves'. I mean, can anyone really imagine a neanderthal trying to enslave other neanderthals to do what, built railroad tracks for their lazy masters? Hunt bison en masse? Be raped and how would they not try to escape? Did they have chains or guns to keep them? omg I can't believe I have to argue this. Slavery was based in economics and greed. Higher forms of technology and complex, stationary, large scale societies were necessary for it to occur than were present in the early hominid environment. To ever view slavery as some kind of nature-based phenomena, that began at the pure, beautiful, 'dawn of time' is the most disgusting sort of ignorance and justification of pure evil. If you assume that all slavery is based on economics then you would probably be right. The kidnapping of females, at least, from other tribes and integrating them into your group seems to be in the nature of some primates other than humans. No, that is not slavery as we see it today. But when you start looking at the integration of primates into new tribes it seems that they enter at the bottom of the hierarchy and may be able to work their way up within it. Yes, it seems to be more common for females to move between tribes and to integrate into the new one and that is certainly something that has existed as far back as we have records of it. I think mitochondrial DNA may be able to show such movement in people today but while I occasionally read in the area I do not claim expertise in it. My argument for my supposition is that if we see similar activities in both the higher primates and humans, the possibility of similar or even the same thing happening in pre-humans is possible and could easily be argued as probable. Personal opinion time. I think the formation of historical slavery back to its earliest roots has its origin in bride capture which probably does predate humans and was settled into something we might recognize with the beginnings of agriculture. My 400 level anthro class with Dr. Gebhardt about the beginnings of everything was 30+ and I no longer have or have access to the notes from the class. However, as I recall the beginnings of repeated gathering at the same spot and the possible reseeding of it does predate modern man and returning to gather at a known spot certainly does. So....there are reasons for my supposition but as I said, nothing I can prove. Just the feeling that those things which descended into or were precursors to what we now know as slavery may well be that old. It would make for an interesting thread or discussion but I don't know if there is enough data to prove it one way or another. Be well.... Malkinius

PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 4:09:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius Actually, I was mostly talking about political correctness, not feminism there. It's fascinating to investigate that term 'political correctness'. I remember it once being applied in a narrow way to describe uptight language and the assumption that changing one's language automatically changed one's attitude. My first published letter to a national newspaper slammed that attitude. A decade later and by the time of Howard's 2005 Tory electoral campaign here in the UK, though, its meaning had broadened considerably. 'We're here to sweep away political correctness', was Howard's mantra. 'Political correctness' had now come to be applied to almost anything that the right wing didn't like about the left wing.

Malkinius -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 4:13:37 AM)
Greetings crazyml... quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Apologies for the delay in responding - occasioned by my going to bed. Sleep happens....even with me. quote: Oh, you can never study enough history! I agree completely. I'm really sorry, but you misunderstood my point. I see where the misunderstanding lies and it's entirely my fault (although it does seem as if several other readers got it straight away, but please don't regard this as a reflection on your comprehension or intelligence but more my lack of clarity). When I say "Not so long ago, society was 'set up' so that Africans could be taken from their countries and made into slaves", I don't mean to say that people decided it was ok to take slaves not long ago - I mean that "Society is set up that way..." was one of the excuses people used for its continued acceptance. I mean - what sort of stupid fucking idiot would believe that slavery was only invented in the 1700's! Sheesh! What sort of idiot? A lot of them regretfully. Too many people think slavery was only done in the model of the US which was a short lived aberration of what had been happening for thousands of years. It wasn't even close to what had been happening. Your post also fell into the usual trap of assuming or stating that it was only slavery based on race when actually that seeming racial based slavery was actually religious based. Both Christians and Muslims had beliefs that you could not enslave co-religionists and since black Africans were neither they were fair game to both. quote: Thanks for adding the historical extras, as they go to support my point I'm particularly grateful. Common excuses for slavery, treating females as chattels, and stoning gays to death are "Society was set up that way", "That's what we've been doing for millennia". An apologist for slavery might even take your excellent historical points and say "Well slavery wasn't our idea! They've been doing it for 1000's of years". Thank you for that. You are right and people have done it. My point is that you fell into a common error which too many people have been taught. Even if you actually do know better, it did not come across that way. It is a problem with certain knee-jerk responses. I have similar problems with all sorts of hate speech and the denigrating of one group to boost another. While I do dislike some groups, those groups are based on shared ideologies, not something about what they were born with. I will note that while someone can be born INTO a political ideology or religious group, that does not mean that they must stay in it when they become rational which usually happens as an adult. Some individuals never get to that state. <grins> I think we all know a few. quote: So I'm sure you can see that I wasn't making any attempt to make a snide comment about America. I'm glad I was able to clear this up for you. It looked to me like you were just spouting the party line which does lead to that. I have been down these paths many times, just not here. I normally make ti a policy to stay out of political and religious debates here. I don't consider the history of slavery, something I have studied, to be that. I have also studied the uses and effects of propaganda and communications in general and the attempts of groups to move social trends and what happens with them when they move too far. The pendulum effect I mentioned. quote: But again, I'm bound to say that "Well slavery was started by the Africans" would be a pretty fucking poor justification for slavery - But I know you're not the kind of stupid ass who would use that argument. True. Nor is the argument that because someone else does something wrong or illegal it justifies your doing the same. I pointed it out because you brought race into the discussion and did so in the way that usually indicates ignorance of historical fact. quote: I'd like to, respond to one of your comments in particular - quote: It could pre-date Homo Sapiens but I have no proof of that. This is pretty "out-there" as a theory, since most anthropoligists believe that hunter gatherer societies weren't capable of supporting organised slave taking, to to argue that it predates Homo Sapiens is either brave or foolish. I'd really like to know what you base this theory of yours on - If you could make a strong case, it would earn you a PHD (or another one) in a flash. I presume you've a background in Anthropology? I responded to this point to realwhiteknight but it is not a hunter society that I and my reading believe started slavery as we know it but it happened with the gatherer side and with the beginnings of agriculture. I do not have a PhD. I do have a BA in communications, specifically broadcasting with speech and history minors. <grins> I wish now I would have had both the resources and energy to continue in semiotics but it was a bit too new and I did not understand it as I do now when I finished college. That is a path I wish I had taken. Be well.... Malkinius Oh...one more quick answer to another question of yours. Look at the responses to my statement for the ones I was referring to. <grins>

Malkinius -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 4:21:48 AM)
Greetings..... quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It's fascinating to investigate that term 'political correctness'. I remember it once being applied in a narrow way to describe uptight language and the assumption that changing one's language automatically changed one's attitude. My first published letter to a national newspaper slammed that attitude. A decade later and by the time of Howard's 2005 Tory electoral campaign here in the UK, though, its meaning had broadened considerably. 'We're here to sweep away political correctness', was Howard's mantra. 'Political correctness' had now come to be applied to almost anything that the right wing didn't like about the left wing. From a communication and semiotic point of view it really is and you were right about what its original design intention was. The concept of controlling thought by controlling language and the meaning of words is an old one. Orwell's 1984 used that concept and I believe it predated him. We are still using it both politically and in advertising. You are also right about it being a left versus right argument and calling it an ideology of the left is correct based on the people promulgating it. The excesses of it have pretty much vanished and a few things that were needed and were useful seem to have stayed. However, most of it in the US in most places has died off. A friend of mine once worked for a company whose job it was to train companies in compliance with political correctness. No, I am not joking. Their in-house culture was weird from the stories I was told. Saying someone looked nice in how they were dressed was considered sexual harassment and this was a female talking to a male. That is an extreme of political correctness that I hope no one here will miss. Be well.... Malkinius

realwhiteknight -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/24/2010 5:14:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius Greetings realwhiteknight.... quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight True, Domi. I have to say, the concept of slavery pre-dating H. sapiens is almost laughable. (Julia should weigh in on this, as we were all discussing primate behavior and her experiences digging in a cramped pit in 95% heat for grad school on another thread). I certainly imagine the occasional kidnapping of an odd member of another group, or even battles between small tribes of pre- H Sapiens (H erectus, H habilis and even Neanderthals under some categorizations) but all individuals living in the early environment would be much more invested in pure survival than trying to capture/enslave others especially when it carried such a great risk to themselves. Even if some were added to the group for breeding or social purposed, to add to a dying population for example, those captured would have assimilated for survival and could have not properly been referred to as 'slaves'. I mean, can anyone really imagine a neanderthal trying to enslave other neanderthals to do what, built railroad tracks for their lazy masters? Hunt bison en masse? Be raped and how would they not try to escape? Did they have chains or guns to keep them? omg I can't believe I have to argue this. Slavery was based in economics and greed. Higher forms of technology and complex, stationary, large scale societies were necessary for it to occur than were present in the early hominid environment. To ever view slavery as some kind of nature-based phenomena, that began at the pure, beautiful, 'dawn of time' is the most disgusting sort of ignorance and justification of pure evil. If you assume that all slavery is based on economics then you would probably be right. The kidnapping of females, at least, from other tribes and integrating them into your group seems to be in the nature of some primates other than humans. I would 'probably' be right only in the sense that any american history 101 class you take will pretty much remove any doubt as to its base in economics. As for the kidnapping of females from other tribes in non human primates idea, I did not say anything about this. I spoke only of hominids, our ancestors (and neanderthals- not our ancestors but a branch that died out). What I find it interesting is that you seem to immediately ascribe a given behavior of an animal, despite its infrequency, to the NATURE of that animal. Behaviors are an expression of a mixture of genetically-based ability and environmental needs, and always measured with the cost-benefit model of thinking. I think you're confusing the concept of human 'nature' with what we're capable of under our drive for survival. What exactly is your proof that 'kidnapping of females from other tribes' of nonhuman primates even occurs? I know very little of primatology, but I am not aware of this happening. I know of females leaving their group in search of new groups, and males being kicked out of their group, but not of kidnapping females INTO the group from anything I've ever heard. quote: My argument for my supposition is that if we see similar activities in both the higher primates and humans, the possibility of similar or even the same thing happening in pre-humans is possible and could easily be argued as probable. Personal opinion time. I think the formation of historical slavery back to its earliest roots has its origin in bride capture which probably does predate humans and was settled into something we might recognize with the beginnings of agriculture. So if we wouldn't recognize it as slavery, why would you consider it to be slavery? Your argument is a general principle, not an argument. What you're saying to support your argument would be like me saying, "well I believe that this orange tastes good- and my argument is that the law of gravity." There's no connection between the two. (Sorry I couldnt think of a better analogy at the moment [8\|]) Again, your personal opinion on the matter doesn't matter if it's not backed up with solid facts and evidence. quote: It would make for an interesting thread or discussion but I don't know if there is enough data to prove it one way or another. Yes this was my point. Why try to argue a point that you don't even know if there is evidence for? Unless maybe - [sm=idea.gif]perchance you simply want to believe that argument.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875