The Subjection of Women - John Stewart Mill

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ajax.... :-)

TD and Harmony you still have answered one that Fort made. You say that society made women do things because they were women in the past. I agree. Yet being a man wasn't always a blessing in the past either as we demonstrated with military conscription. Women were spared this responsiblity. So why wouldn't it be fair to say that society has repressed men for thousands of years due to military conscription?

For most of history it was considered a grand thing to be a warrior. Men wanted to participate. It was considered an honor and a privilege. Today, those who participate in the armed services also choose to do so. And when the opportunity opened up for women to participate many jumped at the chance. Participants do not consider their choice of career as repression or degradation... they consider it an honor.

Your point that women were denied career oppurtunities is well taken. Yet I see the investors (often times parents) side of this issue as well. Why invest thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars in educating and training a female when she's likely to not use her skills to make back the money invested in her? Now if that's what she wants and she commits to making back the money then ok, but just becoming a Dr. because you want to be called Dr. and never making a return on your investment in dollars and cents seems to me like something you should do on your own dime.

A couple of thoughts...

First I am talking about rights and opportunities. For virtually ALL of recorded history, women were not allowed to be educated, not allowed to participate in society, or even allowed to own property or have rights to their body. These are all VERY new developments.

Secondly, if a daughter has an amazing talent for science, and a son wants to be an artist, would you deny the daughter her education because she is a girl? Why are a girls dreams any less important than a boys? Why should a girl be denied the opportunity to share her unique gifts and talents with the world because she MAY decide to have a child, or take time off from work? Could it be that a male Dr. may someday become disabled and not be able to work, or maybe his spouse dies and he needs to take time off to handle his homelife, or maybe he decides he wants to participate in the raising of his child?

I had a good friend who received her MD from Harvard, her husband was a stay at home dad (and am EXCELLENT one I might add), should her parents have denied her support because they wanted her to have children and stay at home?

In your scenario... why shouldn't the same standard be held for both a boy and a girl? If the parents are worried about a return on their investment, why not require both children to pay back the money? I just so do not see why the sex of a child should have anything whatsoever to do with a child being given the opportunities to pursue what is important to them.

I fully recognize that some of the old customs didn't seem very fair to women, but it would be nice to develop a more fair culture and basically make sure we have a better culture before throwing out one that was not so good.

That would be nice but it is not how things work. If we look at history, we don't see something great coming first and replacing the old. We see the old not working so new attempts are made to bring forth something new. It is virtually always the case.

Young people, including myself, grow up today and really don't understand what is expected of them in family relationships because society still can't agree on what's fair.

Yes... I see this and understand it. Young people are going to have to create the world. What you bring forth will be the standard. What was the rule of the day is just not working and a new awareness is starting to come forth... one of equality and opportunity for all.

Hence we leave it up to each couple to wade through and battle out and we end up with a lot of marital strife and power struggle.

The beauty of this, while it may seem difficult is that each couple can bring forth their unique gifts in the way they see fit. Now we can have the contributions of women, we can have fathers more involved, we can bring forth the best in everyone.

I think that society teaching young people what their roles are could really help a lot of this.

Telling women they must have children, be a homemaker, cater to men, be submissive, etc. etc. etc. does not benefit anyone. Not the individual, not a relationship, not a world.

There needs to be room to let girls be girls and become women and to let boys be boys and become men. I think this is just one of the many things that we've sacrficied in our change as a human species from small triblal communities to modern urban dwelling creatures.

How about letting people be people? If a woman wants to have children and stay at home... great. If she wants to be a scientist and find a cure for HIV... great. If a man wants to be involved with his children... great. If a man wants to be a elementary teacher... great.

I think people being allowed to follow their heart, to share who they are, to give their unique gifts to the world makes for healthier humans, a less depressed society, and a much more beautiful world!

:-)

~dancer~

[_ajax18]

For most of history it was considered a grand thing to be a warrior. Men wanted to participate. It was considered an honor and a privilege. Today, those who participate in the armed services also choose to do so. And when the opportunity opened up for women to participate many jumped at the chance. Participants do not consider their choice of career as repression or degradation... they consider it an honor.

I think women were underappreciated throughout history for their service as mothers. I think motherhood should be an honor just as marching off to war to die or lose a limb. They're both pretty big sacrifices for humanity.

Secondly, if a daughter has an amazing talent for science, and a son wants to be an artist, would you deny the daughter her education because she is a girl? Why are a girls dreams any less important than a boys? Why should a girl be denied the opportunity to share her unique gifts and talents with the world because she MAY decide to have a child, or take time off from work? Could it be that a male Dr. may someday become disabled and not be able to work, or maybe his spouse dies and he needs to take time off to handle his homelife, or maybe he decides he wants to participate in the raising of his child?

In your scenario... why shouldn't the same standard be held for both a boy and a girl?

Definitely he should. In my opinion far too many young people have been poisoned by the words of guidance counselors telling them to do what they love. Guidance counselors should be researching market trends and trying to help young people find where the demand will be. Then figure out what the working conditions are likely to be like. The point being is that too many young people (male and female) get degrees that are worthless. Take my sister for example. My mother is a teacher and now she realizes just how bad this profession can be in dollars and cents. She spent $20k to get the bachelors. They forced her to get her masters at her own expense or be fired after she started, and as a last slap in the face she became aware of the fact that even after 15 years of her service, the secretary and the janitor make more than her. I taught before myself and question why anyone would do it unless they were just indepedently wealthy and wanted to go on a humanitarian mission of sorts. The amount of work and pressure to control the uncontrollable was just about as tough as medical school and the payoff was nonexistant, at least in money.

What has ticked us off is that my younger sister has basically chosen this career path because it's easy and allows her plenty of time to pursue her social life. Deep down she thinks that some man is going to take care of her and she shouldn't have to work if she so chooses. As you pointed out life isn't like that. Maybe the husband dies, gets fired, and rich men aren't easy to come by. I don't think she'd be happy as a kept woman either.

So in my world, while education can produce self fullfillment, at the end of the day for working class people, it better end up being a good investment. If you're rich, that's another story, but most of us are not.

[_harmony]

For most of history it was considered a grand thing to be a warrior. Men wanted to participate. It was considered an honor and a privilege. Today, those who participate in the armed services also choose to do so. And when the opportunity opened up for women to participate many jumped at the chance. Participants do not consider their choice of career as repression or degradation... they consider it an honor.

I think women were underappreciated throughout history for their service as mothers. I think motherhood should be an honor just as marching off to war to die or lose a limb. They're both pretty big sacrifices for humanity.

Mothers = fathers, so the point is moot. What is a valid comparison is homemakers = (insert male career choice here), and that one is uneven, since homemakers do not contribute money to the household. It's not motherhood that is the issue for feminists; it's the denigration that homemakers received from society that is the issue. In trying to find a solution to the lack of respect for homemakers, feminists have occasionally incorrectly conflated motherhood with homemaking.

Definitely he should. In my opinion far too many young people have been poisoned by the words of guidance counselors telling them to do what they love. Guidance counselors should be researching market trends and trying to help young people find where the demand will be. Then figure out what the working conditions are likely to be like. The point being is that too many young people (male and female) get degrees that are worthless.

And guidance counselors are responsible for students' choices why? And how? No guidance counselor has ever forced a student to get a degree at all, let alone a worthless degree, so I don't see your complaint.

Take my sister for example. My mother is a teacher and now she realizes just how bad this profession can be in dollars and cents. She spent $20k to get the bachelors. They forced her to get her masters at her own expense or be fired after she started, and as a last slap in the face she became aware of the fact that even after 15 years of her service, the secretary and the janitor make more than her. I taught before myself and question why anyone would do it unless they were just indepedently wealthy and wanted to go on a humanitarian mission of sorts. The amount of work and pressure to control the uncontrollable was just about as tough as medical school and the payoff was nonexistant, at least in money.

And you live where? Because my daughter is a teacher, went to 7 years of college to get a bachelors degree (in Kinesiology) and a masters (in Teaching), has worked for 4 years as a middle school teacher in one of the most deprived schools in my state, and makes almost $50,000 a year. She makes almost twice as much as the administrative or maintenance staff. It's not a bad career choice for someone who doesn't want to be an engineer, enjoys working with youth, wants to change the world one kid at a time. The frustrations of the job (working with parents who don't value education, the idiocy involved in the love affair of policymakers and the press with standardized testing, etc) create no more pressure than any other profession. Some teachers think they're the hardest working people on the planet, and don't realize that many other professions take work home every night too, and they don't get 3 months of the summer off work.

What has ticked us off is that my younger sister has basically chosen this career path because it's easy and allows her plenty of time to pursue her social life.

If it works for her, why do you care? If she performs her tasks well, why do you care that she structures her life so she can enjoy her social life?

Deep down she thinks that some man is going to take care of her and she shouldn't have to work if she so chooses.

And you know this based on an indepth examination? Or are you just guessing? And why do you care if she marries someone who loves her who wants to take care of her, in case she chooses to not work outside the home? My advice would be for you to find someone who wants to take care of you, in case you want to be the stay at home dad.

As you pointed out life isn't like that. Maybe the husband dies, gets fired, and rich men aren't easy to come by. I don't think she'd be happy as a kept woman either.

It's her decision. What you think doesn't matter. And stay at home moms aren't "kept" women. Good grief.

So in my world, while education can produce self fullfillment, at the end of the day for working class people, it better end up being a good investment. If you're rich, that's another story, but most of us are not.

So you think everyone should pursue education only if it will result in what you consider to be productive work? And you get to make those decisions for someone else based on your extensive knowledge in that field? Several of the arts, humanities, and social sciences were just cut from college offerings in the last 10 minutes, because you have determined that they have no place in a society based on productive work. Sports and recreation programs are gone, as are most religion and philosophy careers... they aren't productive enough. Do you see how incredibly arrogant this appears? Who are you to tell your sister she shouldn't have the career she has? And who is your mother, to tell other teachers their career is not important?

[_truth dancer]

Hey Ajax...

The thing is, if it weren't for feminism, your sister and your mother and all the women you know would not be allowed to be educated, let alone teach.

For five thousand years women have been virtually non-existent when it comes to sharing their creativity, spirit, and understanding with the world. Think of the art, literature, music, inventions and ideas that have been lost to humankind because women were not allowed to express and share who they are in all ways.

It is a tragedy beyond words, in my opinion.

I just do not see how limiting the healthy and beautiful and unique expression of human beings because some people think men and women should only take on particular roles, is a good thing.

~dancer~

[_Fortigurn]

For most of history it was considered a grand thing to be a warrior. Men wanted to participate. It was considered an honor and a privilege.

What you've identified is a psychological bribe designed to fool men into placing themselves in harm's way for the sake of the community. Societies gave honour to their warriors specifically to condition men into thinking that it was a good idea to go out and be killed. But this conditioning only came later, when societies became more sophisticated. Men arose as warriors in the earliest communities not because of the honour of the position, but because they were best suited for the role.

Societies developed rituals and mores intended to condition men into thinking that going out and getting an axe in the head was a really great idea, and something which should be respected. It was necessary to do this, because intelligent men do not want to go out and have someone stab them in the gut with a spear. It was part of a systematic combination of bribery and threats intended to condition men into thinking that it was their unavoidable responsibility to go out and be killed for the sake of the community. Today it would be called gendercide.

You say 'Men wanted to participate', but you don't know that. Certainly there were plenty of men who did, but there were undoubtedly plenty of men who didn't, just as there are plenty of men today who don't want to participate in the warrior role. But men had no choice. For thousands of years they were brainwashed by society into believing that part of what it meant to 'be a man' was to throw their lives away for the society, regardless of the cause or cost. Today that brainwashing still exists, and is even more powerful than before.

The only difference is that thanks to the courage of a number of men who were prepared to stand up for themselves, resisted the conditioning and refused to be brainwashed, a number of modern societies now permit men to choose whether or not they wish to take on the warrior role.

Today, those who participate in the armed services also choose to do so. And when the opportunity opened up for women to participate many jumped at the chance. Participants do not consider their choice of career as repression or degradation... they consider it an honor.

Yes, this just shows how successful the brainwashing has been.

For virtually ALL of recorded history, women were not allowed to be educated, not allowed to participate in society, or even allowed to own property or have rights to their body. These are all VERY new developments.

I'm afraid that his historically inaccurate.

There needs to be room to let girls be girls and become women and to let boys be boys and become men. I think this is just one of the many things that we've sacrficied in our change as a human species from small triblal communities to modern urban dwelling creatures.

How about letting people be people? If a woman wants to have children and stay at home... great. If she wants to be a scientist and find a cure for HIV... great. If a man wants to be involved with his children... great. If a man wants to be a elementary teacher... great.

I think people being allowed to follow their heart, to share who they are, to give their unique gifts to the world makes for healthier humans, a less depressed society, and a much more beautiful world!

I believe that's what Ajax is saying.

[_ajax18]

Do you see how incredibly arrogant this appears? Who are you to tell your sister she shouldn't have the career she has? And who is your mother, to tell other teachers their career is not important?

Well my mother is basically the one putting up the money and she's also the one who will have to clean up the mess that my sister creates for herself. So I think she has every right to be a part of that decision, even cutting off funding if she disagrees enough. The arts, sports, and all that are luxuries. So my statement remains that one should pursue this on his own dime, definitely not the states. I also believe this fantasy of a man taking care of them and college being nothing more than a fun time and work being an option but only if you want to and not because I should is prevalent amongst young women in LDS culture today. It doesn't look very fair to me at all.

Unfortunately most people just aren't very fair. So leaving it up to the couple to figure it out, usually means that whoever wears the pants in the relationship gets his/her way all the time. At first this is the woman. When the man breaks out of this subjugation later in the marriage, divorce happens and she's left crying, "Why didn't he take care of me like he said he would?" Well because what you were asking wasn't fair and a lot of it wasn't even possible. But he said he would? He'll tell you anything to sleep with you. You knew that. You chose to believe it because it pleased your carnal mind.

Yeah we lose some contributions through roles but I think the breakdown of the family is a very serious issue as well. We need to be more fair to each other if we expect marriages to last. If we don't care about marriages lasting, then that is in my view a sign of real selfishness. I used to think women like Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez were attractive. Now that I've seen what they're like and how they treat men, I can honestly say I'm not attracted to them at all. They disgust me.

[_harmony]

Do you see how incredibly arrogant this appears? Who are you to tell your sister she shouldn't have the career she has? And who is your mother, to tell other teachers their career is not important?

Well my mother is basically the one putting up the money and she's also the one who will have to clean up the mess that my sister creates for herself.

Indeed, the one who puts up the money calls the shots. It's always been like that. In the past, it was virtually always the men who controlled the money. Your mother is lucky she lives when she lives; otherwise, she wouldn't be the one making that decision.

But why would your mother have to clean up a mess made by your sister, especially if it's your sister who suffers because of the mess? That's called enabling, and it's a sign of an unhealthy relationship. If your sister makes a mess of her life, it's not up to your mother to clean it up; that's your sister's task. Your mother can't live your sister's life.

So I think she has every right to be a part of that decision, even cutting off funding if she disagrees enough.

I disagree. I think she has the right to cut off funding, but not the right to tell a child what she career path she will follow. But then, I'm the mom who told her children (boys and girls both) to get good grades in high school, because I wasn't going to fund their college education. I found it counterproductive to give my children something they needed to earn themselves. It's worked well for us. They have careers that are satisfying for themselves. They are happy. I've seen too many people of my generation who hate their jobs and hate their lives to ever try to shoehorn one of my children into my idea of what they should be.

The arts, sports, and all that are luxuries.

I disagree. I think they are as necessary as food and air. Without beauty, we are less than what we could be. Without fun, we are less than what we could be. And both of those serve as vehicles to make it possible for those who are underserved or un-connected with the school environment in any productive way to not only complete their basic education, but also to resist such things as criminal activity, dysfunctional personal relationships, and some unhealthy behavior. I have the "If you let me play" poem hanging on my wall of my cubicle, to remind myself daily of why I support such activities as necessities, not luxuries.

So my statement remains that one should pursue this on his own dime, definitely not the states.

Perhaps the state knows more than you, on this subject. Perhaps they see value where you do not, simply because they've seen and evaluated the relevant research in ways you have not.

I also believe this fantasy of a man taking care of them and college being nothing more than a fun time and work being an option but only if you want to and not because I should is prevalent amongst young women in LDS culture today.

Ah, now that I don't know. I raised my girls to be independent thinkers, career minded women. That's probably why both of them have masters' degrees, one of them is a teacher and the other is a librarian.

It doesn't look very fair to me at all.

Welcome to the female world for the last 5000 years or so.

Unfortunately most people just aren't very fair. So leaving it up to the couple to figure it out, usually means that whoever wears the pants in the relationship gets his/her way all the time. At first this is the woman. When the man breaks out of this subjugation later in the marriage, divorce happens and she's left crying, "Why didn't he take care of me like he said he would?" Well because what you were asking wasn't fair and a lot of it wasn't even possible. But he said he would? He'll tell you anything to sleep with you. You knew that. You chose to believe it because it pleased your carnal mind.

Yeah we lose some contributions through roles but I think the breakdown of the family is a very serious issue as well. We need to be more fair to each other if we expect marriages to last. If we don't care about marriages lasting, then that is in my view a sign of real selfishness. I used to think women like Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez were attractive. Now that I've seen what they're like and how they treat men, I can honestly say I'm not attracted to them at all. They disgust me.

You have a very jaundiced worldview of marriage and the male-female relationship. I wonder why.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ajax...

So leaving it up to the couple to figure it out, usually means that whoever wears the pants in the relationship gets his/her way all the time.

I wonder why you think this?

I don't see this at all... perhaps it is your experience or observation but I do not think this is the case in healthy and respectful EQUAL relationships.

At first this is the woman. When the man breaks out of this subjugation later in the marriage, divorce happens and she's left crying, "Why didn't he take care of me like he said he would?" Well because what you were asking wasn't fair and a lot of it wasn't even possible. But he said he would? He'll tell you anything to sleep with you. You knew that. You chose to believe it because it pleased your carnal mind.

Very sad you think this is what a relationship is about.

Yeah we lose some contributions through roles but I think the breakdown of the family is a very serious issue as well.

I agree that the breakdown of the family is serious... I do not think demanding or requiring certain people to play certain roles benefits marriage, individuals, or our world.

We need to be more fair to each other if we expect marriages to last. If we don't care about marriages lasting, then that is in my view a sign of real selfishness. I used to think women like Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez were attractive. Now that I've seen what they're like and how they treat men, I can honestly say I'm not attracted to them at all. They disgust me.

I'm glad you find value in decency, integrity, and goodness! :-)

~dancer~