The Subjection of Women - John Stewart Mill

[_Fortigurn]

I, on the other hand, think that sums it up quite nicely. Only, I am not sure that men always consciously sought to subjugate, demean, and degrade women, but regardless of intent, that was the outcome.

Early societies had no laws forbidding women to be educated, a number of the early Mesopotamian legal codes (the Eshnunna legal code, early Egyptian legal codes, Lipit-Ishtar code, code of Hammurabi, Neo-Babylonian code, Mosaic legal code), were very 'enlightened' by modern standards (a number of them granting women the right to divorce their husband), and did not seek to subjugate, demean, or degrade women. Making generalisations about 5,000 years of history isn't very useful, especially with regard to a complicated subject such as this.

If it wasn't men, who was it?

You're assuming the original statement was entirely accurate. I am not.

It was actually religion.

Early legal codes were dictated by practicality more than religion. We think it's shocking that early societies placed an expecation on the man to go out and work, fight, and hunt, and an expectation on the woman to keep house (though a number of ancient legal codes demonstrate that women also conducted business), but practically speaking this was the optimal way to order society. A combination of biological differences between men and women, economic circumstances and technological limitations, created pressures which made this the optimal division of labour. It wasn't intended to subjugate, demean and degrade women, it was just sensible.

For example, no city would have survived with an army of women and men staying in the kitchen. Women were physically weaker than men, and there was no military technology which nullified the disparity of physical power between the genders. Likewise, it would have rightly been considered laughable to suggest that a woman could hunt or perform heavy labour as effectively as a man. They simply didn't have the physical capacity to do so. The early legal codes were built on practicality.

Interesting to note that the most common Pagan God was a fertility God - and would often take the form of a woman or female figure. Mankind worshiped life...in all its great possibilties.

I believe that's a dramatic oversimplification. The female fertility cults as fondly imagined by neo-pagans and post-modernists did not exist in such an idealised form. The earliest goddesses were grossly sanguinary (one of the early Mesopotamian goddesses wades in the blood of her enemies up to her thighs), and some required human sacrifice. I also find it ironic that these female fertility cults are so frequently held up as an example of an enlightened attitude towards women, when in fact they were often intended to reinforce the role of the woman as brood mother and sexual tool (early Mesopotamian goddesses were consorts of the gods, and were seducers of men, the victims of rape, or prolific breeders).

in my opinion, those who worship a monotheistic God are really worshipping death - since their view of perfection is bound to differ with another societies view of perfection. For clarification, see The Crusades, and current West-Arab relations.

I would like to see some more data on this subjet before addressing this statement.

If I had to blame one "person", or entity, it would be the Catholic church, who deemed it neccesary to turn Mary Magdalene into a whore. This one piece of dogma gave local bishops the "right" to defile women as they saw fit to.

I have no particular love for the Catholic Church (and there is much about it I despise, quite frankly), but the characterisation of Mary Magdelene as a whore was simply an exegetical error of Gregory I in the 6th century. It wasn't the cornerstone of a systematic theological denigration of women by the Catholic Church, and it wasn't adopted by all theologians. In fact the alpha female in the Roman Catholic Church is without doubt the 'Blessed Virgin Mary', who is granted an exalted status above every single human being on the planet, is allegedly 'Queen of Heaven', and 'co-medatrix' with Jesus himself. I would be the first to charge the RCC with cognitive dissonance, but it cannot be denied that the one human being in the Catholic system who is supreme over the entire world and is endowed with supernatural virtues is not male (not the pope), but female (Mary).

Curiously, however, alot of Spanish and Latin peoples still revere women...that is they place the Virgin Mary in very high regards, almost to the point that their culture is surprisingly maternalistic alot of the time. ie In alot of Spanish homes, the female is the center of the household. I have no idea how this occured, but I welcome it.

There you go. It actually occurred as an inevitable product of the Catholic Marian cultus.

Hey Fort...

I'm suggesting that the laws should give all humans, equal rights. Laws should not limit opportunity, education, or rights based on ones sex.

That is it.

Yes, I understand that. I agree that if we have laws then they should be orderd in that way. But I would prefer a system which is not based on rights, but on responsibilities, and which is not fear/punishment based (as Western law is), but incentive based. Let's face it, if I treated my children the way the Western law treats me, they would be taken away from me.

Regardless of what YOU think is best for a child, or for a mother, or for a father after the birth of a child, the laws should not dictate which parent gets to stay home and which parent doesn't, or which parent should get to take off more time from work, or which parent should get custody of a child based on the sex of the parent, or which parent should work and which parent should stay at home. It should be what the couple feels is in the best interest of their children and their family.

I agree. That's what I said in my last post.

Because YOU think it is more important that your wife bond with your child, does not mean everyone else feels that way.

I am fully aware of that. I was not suggesting that there be legislation imposing my view on others. I have argued against leglislation imposing anyone's views on others.

If both parents are great, a child should have equal access to both parents. I can't imagine why anyone would argue this point.

I don't think anyone was arguing this point.

Custody should have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with providing the child with the best possible situation. With emotionally healthy and involved parents, children do best when both parents are involved.

I certainly agree.

And, generally speaking in terms of a child benefitting with the involvement of a emotionally healthy and involved father... the research is overwhelmingly clear. Not sure who would argue this point.

The argument is not made against the benefits of an emotionally healthy and involved father. The argument is made that the child can benefit equally well without such a father. When you work in the education industry in Australia, it's amazing what you hear.

So what... are you suggesting women should not have the rights they do? That various races should still not receive the same rights as Caucasians? That only certain people should get rights and priviledges (IE... white men)?

Not in the least. I have absolutely no idea how you managed to interpret what I wrote in that way, especially since I said nothing about removing women's rights, nothing about the rights of different races, and nothing about only certain people getting rights and privileges. Indeed, all of these evils are systematically reinforced by the Western law code and society, which is what I object to.

n fact the issue of child custody is one that bothers me sometimes. According to the law it's supposed to be equal, but I hear that often times the woman gets it while the man gets stuck with paying the bills.

Strange but true. That is the prevailing circumstance in Western society. This is the product of allegedly egalitarian laws. I remain unconvinced that they are performing their function.

[_guy sajer]

I, on the other hand, think that sums it up quite nicely. Only, I am not sure that men always consciously sought to subjugate, demean, and degrade women, but regardless of intent, that was the outcome.

Early societies had no laws forbidding women to be educated, a number of the early Mesopotamian legal codes (the Eshnunna legal code, early Egyptian legal codes, Lipit-Ishtar code, code of Hammurabi, Neo-Babylonian code, Mosaic legal code), were very 'enlightened' by modern standards (a number of them granting women the right to divorce their husband), and did not seek to subjugate, demean, or degrade women. Making generalisations about 5,000 years of history isn't very useful, especially with regard to a complicated subject such as this.

One can only deal in generalizations when trying to summarize 5,000 years or so of human history. We don't have the time or space to deal with a good number of specifics.

For every generalization there are exceptions, sometimes many of them. To take another exception, medeval Irish society was also enlightened by European standards where it came to women. But the existence of exceptions doesn't necessarily invalidate the generalization. That's why they're called generalizations.

Moreover, one must look at the entire sytems and not point to specific aspects of it to reach a conclusion regarding its relative state of enlightenment. Access to education or rights to divorce are only a couple of many criteria one can invoke when assessing the condition of women in society. There are also legal rights, suffrage, property ownership, child custody, economic opportunities, domestic violence codes, and so on. It's a spectrum, and different societies have fallen at different places on the spectrum.

But I believe that the generalization holds true. For the most part, world societies and cultures have historically favored men over women in terms or rights, privileges, etc., and men, for the most part, were the ones respondible for devising, administering,and enforcing the rules of those societies.

No one is arguing that there are not, nor never have been, exceptions.

[_Fortigurn]

One can only deal in generalizations when trying to summarize 5,000 years or so of human history. We don't have the time or space to deal with a good number of specifics.

We don't have to deal with a good number of specifics in order to avoid generalisations. Even a summary can contain carefully qualified statements as opposed to completely unqualified generalisations.

For every generalization there are exceptions, sometimes many of them. To take another exception, medeval Irish society was also enlightened by European standards where it came to women. But the existence of exceptions doesn't necessarily invalidate the generalization. That's why they're called generalizations.

I have been pointing out that at present no evidence has been presented to suppport the generalisation.

Moreover, one must look at the entire sytems and not point to specific aspects of it to reach a conclusion regarding its relative state of enlightenment. Access to education or rights to divorce are only a couple of many criteria one can invoke when assessing the condition of women in society. There are also legal rights, suffrage, property ownership, child custody, economic opportunities, domestic violence codes, and so on. It's a spectrum, and different societies have fallen at different places on the spectrum.

I agree. That is why I believe the generalisation is unuseful and inaccurate.

But I believe that the generalization holds true. For the most part, world societies and cultures have historically favored men over women in terms or rights, privileges, etc., and men, for the most part, were the ones respondible for devising, administering,and enforcing the rules of those societies.

No one is arguing that there are not, nor never have been, exceptions.

The question is whether or not this preferment has necessarily involved the subjugation, degradation, and demeaning of women. I do not believe it has.

[_guy sajer]

One can only deal in generalizations when trying to summarize 5,000 years or so of human history. We don't have the time or space to deal with a good number of specifics.

We don't have to deal with a good number of specifics in order to avoid generalisations. Even a summary can contain carefully qualified statements as opposed to completely unqualified generalisations.

For every generalization there are exceptions, sometimes many of them. To take another exception, medeval Irish society was also enlightened by European standards where it came to women. But the existence of exceptions doesn't necessarily invalidate the generalization. That's why they're called generalizations.

I have been pointing out that at present no evidence has been presented to suppport the generalisation.

And you've presented no systematic evidence supporting the converse.

You've presented counter-examples, as have I, but I am not asserting a rule, but a general tendency. A handful of counter-examples are insufficient to disprove an assertion of general tendency.

Moreover, from where I sit, the appropriate null hypothesis is that social systems historically TEND to discriminate against women, not the other way around.

Moreover, one must look at the entire sytems and not point to specific aspects of it to reach a conclusion regarding its relative state of enlightenment. Access to education or rights to divorce are only a couple of many criteria one can invoke when assessing the condition of women in society. There are also legal rights, suffrage, property ownership, child custody, economic opportunities, domestic violence codes, and so on. It's a spectrum, and different societies have fallen at different places on the spectrum.

I agree. That is why I believe the generalisation is unuseful and inaccurate.

I disagree. I believe that generalization in this case is both justified and reasonably accurate.

But I believe that the generalization holds true. For the most part, world societies and cultures have historically favored men over women in terms or rights, privileges, etc., and men, for the most part, were the ones respondible for devising, administering,and enforcing the rules of those societies.

No one is arguing that there are not, nor never have been, exceptions.

The question is whether or not this preferment has necessarily involved the subjugation, degradation, and demeaning of women. I do not believe it has.

It depends on how one defines subjugation, degradation, and demeaning.

Perhaps we can lump them all together and use the word "oppression", which can be defined as "An unjust and systematic excessive exercise of power against an identified group of people, where the laws, attitudes towards and treatment (including portrayal) of this group all reinforce this discriminatory situation."

By this definition, I believe the usage of the term 'oppression" in this context is broadly accurate.

[_Fortigurn]

And you've presented no systematic evidence supporting the converse.

I don't have to. Firstly because the onus is on the claimant to support the original claim, and secondly because I've demonstrated that the generalisation as it stands isn't useful or accurate.

You've presented counter-examples, as have I, but I am not asserting a rule, but a general tendency. A handful of counter-examples are insufficient to disprove an assertion of general tendency.

As I've pointed out, the key phrase is 'subjugation, degradation, and demeaning', and until that has been defined we can't even begin to talk about general tendencies in that direction.

I disagree. I believe that generalization in this case is both justified and reasonably accurate.

I guess this is where we agree to part ways. I won't argue the point further.

It depends on how one defines subjugation, degradation, and demeaning.

Exactly, and also what one characterizes as subjugation, degradation and demeaning. I personally believe that Western contemporary society is systematically degrading and demeaning of women. Women are brainwashed into thinking they are ugly and that their bodies need comprehensive correction in a wide variety of ways in order to conform to an impossible concept of physical perfection, our society even requires them to cover their faces in makeup because we find their natural looks offensive (somehow we think this is more enlightened than a Muslim veil), women are routinely objectified as sexual tools, and motherhood is a role which is widely devalued (the 'stay at home mother' comes in for particular ridicule).

I also think that children are similarly degraded and demeaned. At conception they are often characterized as a parasitic growth within a woman's body (the cure for which is abortion), and from birth they are viewed as competitors for resources and an impediment to one's self-optimization. The systematic devaluation of children is the reason why birth rates fall dramatically in '1st world' societies without exception, even while the availability of resources and general standard of living increases hugely, and why it is standard Western practice to send children out of the house to provide for themselves as early as is legally and practically possible (often earlier). In communities where children are highly valued (whether in '1st world' societies or not), birth rates are higher and children are permitted to stay within the protection and security of the family home for far longer. Where I live, it's nothing for a son or daughter to be still living with their parents at 28, though in Australia this would be seen as downright weird (a sign of weakness on both the side of the parents and child).

Perhaps we can lump them all together and use the word "oppression", which can be defined as "An unjust and systematic excessive exercise of power against an identified group of people, where the laws, attitudes towards and treatment (including portrayal) of this group all reinforce this discriminatory situation."

By this definition, I believe the usage of the term 'oppression" in this context is broadly accurate.

I think you're going to have problems because of that word 'systematic'. I also think that your definition of 'oppression' inevitably characterizes these same societies as oppressing men for thousands of years, though in different ways to the way they oppressed women.

[_guy sajer]

And you've presented no systematic evidence supporting the converse.

I don't have to. Firstly because the onus is on the claimant to support the original claim, and secondly because I've demonstrated that the generalization as it stands isn't useful or accurate.

You've shown nothing of the sort. All you've done is provide counterexamples. And I countered by pointing out that counterexamples do not disprove generalizations. I'm not asserting a "rule" (for which a counterexample would be sufficient evidence to disprove), but a generalization, which assumes the existence of counterexamples.

As for the onus being on who; it depends on what the appropriate null hypothesis is. The null hypothesis commonly incorporates what is commonly known or believed (generally, and not applied mechanistically), which the researcher attempts to disprove or falsify. As I read the current state of knowledge, the null hypothesis is that social systems historically oppress women, which puts the burden of proof on you to demonstrate otherwise.

You've presented counter-examples, as have I, but I am not asserting a rule, but a general tendency. A handful of counter-examples are insufficient to disprove an assertion of general tendency.

As I've pointed out, the key phrase is 'subjugation, degradation, and demeaning', and until that has been defined we can't even begin to talk about general tendencies in that direction.

I can agree with this, which is why I've used the term oppression and defined it.

It depends on how one defines subjugation, degradation, and demeaning.

Exactly, and also what one characterizes as subjugation, degradation and demeaning. I personally believe that Western contemporary society is systematically degrading and demeaning of women. Women are brainwashed into thinking they are ugly and that their bodies need comprehensive correction in a wide variety of ways in order to conform to an impossible concept of physical perfection, our society even requires them to cover their faces in makeup because we find their natural looks offensive (somehow we think this is more enlightened than a Muslim veil), women are routinely objectified as sexual tools, and motherhood is a role which is widely devalued (the 'stay at home mother' comes in for particular ridicule).

I would not go as far as you in this argument.

I also think that children are similarly degraded and demeaned. At conception they are often characterized as a parasitic growth within a woman's body (the cure for which is abortion), and from birth they are viewed as competitors for resources and an impediment to one's self-optimization. The systematic devaluation of children is the reason why birth rates fall dramatically in '1st world' societies without exception, even while the availability of resources and general standard of living increases hugely, and why it is standard Western practice to send children out of the house to provide for themselves as early as is legally and practically possible (often earlier). In communities where children are highly valued (whether in '1st world' societies or not), birth rates are higher and children are permitted to stay within the protection and security of the family home for far longer. Where I live, it's nothing for a son or daughter to be still living with their parents at 28, though in Australia this would be seen as downright weird (a sign of weakness on both the side of the parents and child).

Now it's my turn to charge you with a gross and inaccurate generalization. I think you’ve badly overstated the argument. Tone it down several notches, and I might agree to a certain extent.

Perhaps we can lump them all together and use the word "oppression", which can be defined as "An unjust and systematic excessive exercise of power against an identified group of people, where the laws, attitudes towards and treatment (including portrayal) of this group all reinforce this discriminatory situation."

By this definition, I believe the usage of the term 'oppression" in this context is broadly accurate.

I think you're going to have problems because of that word 'systematic'. I also think that your definition of 'oppression' inevitably characterizes these same societies as oppressing men for thousands of years, though in different ways to the way they oppressed women.

I see nothing wrong with the word “systematic” in this context. In fact, I think it is necessary tom make the definition work.

I agree that men have been oppressed, but I’d clarify that by saying men of certain social, ethnic, race, etc. groups. So, it’s not the fact that they’re male that explains why they’re oppressed, it is the fact that they belong to a marginal and oppressed group.

Women, on the other hand, are oppressed precisely because they’re women.

[_Fortigurn]

You've shown nothing of the sort. All you've done is provide counterexamples. And I countered by pointing out that counterexamples do not disprove generalizations. I'm not asserting a "rule" (for which a counterexample would be sufficient evidence to disprove), but a generalization, which assumes the existence of counterexamples.

As I've pointed out, the generalisation as it stood is invalidated by counterexamples.

As for the onus being on who; it depends on what the appropriate null hypothesis is.

I don't think so. The burden of evidence is on the author of any positive statement. You made a positive statement, I made a negative statement.

As I read the current state of knowledge, the null hypothesis is that social systems historically oppress women, which puts the burden of proof on you to demonstrate otherwise.

As I read the current state of knowledge, the null hypothesis is actually that women have historically endured oppression in social systems, and that men have also historically endured oppression in social systems, though the forms of oppression have differed.

I would not go as far as you in this argument.

I'm sure you wouldn't. We're not conditioned to think this way in the West. We're conditioned in the opposite direction. I don't expect you to challenge that conditioning.

Now it's my turn to charge you with a gross and inaccurate generalization. I think you’ve badly overstated the argument. Tone it down several notches, and I might agree to a certain extent.

I don't think it's an overstatement, though it does contain some generalisations. It is not, however, a complete generalisation. Certain of those statements are observable facts.

I agree that men have been oppressed, but I’d clarify that by saying men of certain social, ethnic, race, etc. groups. So, it’s not the fact that they’re male that explains why they’re oppressed, it is the fact that they belong to a marginal and oppressed group.

Women, on the other hand, are oppressed precisely because they’re women.

No, I'm talking about oppression of men precisely because they're men, regardless of their social, ethnic, racial, or economic status. The systematic oppression of men just because are men is seen in military conscription, for example. Men are forced to train to kill other men and expected to be killed themselves, against their will and often against their conscience. They are chosen specifically because they are men, not because they belong to a particular ethnic, racial, social, or economic group. Historically women have almost universally been spared this oppression, specifically because they are women. This oppression has undoubtedly existed in a variety of forms for at least 40,000 years. And yet most societies consider it entirely acceptable, even many modern societies. It's not even seen as oppression, it's just seen as a very sensible idea.

[_ajax18]

No, I'm talking about oppression of men precisely because they're men, regardless of their social, ethnic, racial, or economic status. The systematic oppression of men just because are men is seen in military conscription, for example. Men are forced to train to kill other men and expected to be killed themselves, against their will and often against their conscience. They are chosen specifically because they are men, not because they belong to a particular ethnic, racial, social, or economic group. Historically women have almost universally been spared this oppression, specifically because they are women. This oppression has undoubtedly existed in a variety of forms for at least 40,000 years. And yet most societies consider it entirely acceptable, even many modern societies. It's not even seen as oppression, it's just seen as a very sensible idea.

That's another example of what I was talking about with feminist groups. The mere fact that they don't actively pursue the abolition of sexist practices such as these shows that they're really not concerned about equality when it goes the other way. I've read the writings of Susan Estrich (by force, it was terrible) and other renowned feminist and the only thing I hear them defending is a women's right to go to the military, but only if she chooses and not by conscription as men are forced to do. It doesn't sound very equal to me, especially when women are just as effective in modern combat as men often times.

[_Fortigurn]

That's another example of what I was talking about with feminist groups. The mere fact that they don't actively pursue the abolition of sexist practices such as these shows that they're really not concerned about equality when it goes the other way. I've read the writings of Susan Estrich (by force, it was terrible) and other renowned feminist and the only thing I hear them defending is a women's right to go to the military, but only if she chooses and not by conscription as men are forced to do. It doesn't sound very equal to me, especially when women are just as effective in modern combat as men often times.

I have sympathies with what you write here, but I will say that in my opinion there are certain combat situations in which women are not as effective as men. They're built completely differently, and you have to get them looking more like men just to make them useful for the role, but they're simply not designed for certain combat situations.

[_ajax18]

The other point to this example is that it forces the feminist to admit that men and women are different therefore should take on different roles in society. The fact that they won't do this with combat shows that they want to keep the old customs that benefit them but get rid of the ones that don't benefit them.

I think TD is doing her best to be fair and I respect that since most I've talked with could care less about fairness to nonfeminine beings. We werent' born into a fair world, and making it fair is a very difficult thing to figure out, let alone get 240 million people to agree upon it and implement it into some form of culture for boys and girls to grow up with.