The Subjection of Women - John Stewart Mill

[_harmony]

"Provide"?

Yes. Enable, if you prefer.

Enable is an entirely different word than provide. I much prefer enable. And I don't think there's much enabling going on nor has there historically been a great deal of enabling for women who want to be more than brood mares.

There's a big difference between providing an opportunity to take on a role (which the person may or may not choose to accept) and mandating through legislation or societal fiat the acceptance of that role.

I agree. I have not seen anyone here arguing that roles should be mandated through legislation or social fiat.

And yet they are. And were.

If some men choose to be the stay at home parent while the wife is the breadwinner, why should he accept the role society provides for him: that of breadwinner?

I see no evidence that the role of 'breadwinner' is provided for him by society. No one has argued that if even men choose to be the stay at home parent, they should accept a role provided for them by someone else.

And yet society expected women to accept the role of mother and homemaker without ever asking her if that's what she wanted, without ever offering other roles or opportunities.

We really have entered the Twilight Zone in this thread. There are invisible posts to which you and LD appear to be replying.

*cue creepy music*

[_Fortigurn]

I mean just notice how many new roles have been provided for women in the last hundred years or so.

Yes, like 'porn star', 'telephone sex line operator', and 'front line cannon fodder'. Isn't progress wonderful?

Actually, I think she was meaning more like engineer, astronaut, and basketball coach.

I am aware of that.

Why you would choose the roles you did intrigues me.

To demonstrate the point I made explicitly, that I do not believe 'our society is certainly moving toward this' (the utopia of equality referred to by LD).

Perhaps you subconsciously only see women as sex objects (your first two examples) or military pawns, and not as productive members of society like engineers, etc.

Or perhaps I was making another point entirely. Please don't malign me with evil motives. If I wanted that, I would go back to MAD.

I do not see women as sex objects or military pawns. I was pointing out that the alleged 'progress' is not what it is represented to be. Interestingly, you appear to agree with me, since you view the three jobs I referred to negatively, whereas other feminists hail them as victories for the 'liberation' and 'empowerment' of women.

[_Fortigurn]

There's a big difference between providing an opportunity to take on a role (which the person may or may not choose to accept) and mandating through legislation or societal fiat the acceptance of that role.

I agree. I have not seen anyone here arguing that roles should be mandated through legislation or social fiat.

And yet they are. And were.

Then I suggest you take your argument to those responsible.

And yet society expected women to accept the role of mother and homemaker without ever asking her if that's what she wanted, without ever offering other roles or opportunities.

Again, you're preaching to the choir (but let's not mention that men were equally expected to take up the role society appointed them without being provided other roles or opportunities).

[_harmony]

I mean just notice how many new roles have been provided for women in the last hundred years or so.

Yes, like 'porn star', 'telephone sex line operator', and 'front line cannon fodder'. Isn't progress wonderful?

Actually, I think she was meaning more like engineer, astronaut, and basketball coach.

I am aware of that.

I suspect there are thousands if not millions more engineers, astronauts, and basketball coaches than there are porn stars, telephone sex line operators, or front line cannon fodder. So I'm wondering why you felt your examples more closely represent women's opportunities than mine?

Why you would choose the roles you did intrigues me.

To demonstrate the point I made explicitly, that I do not believe 'our society is certainly moving toward this' (the utopia of equality referred to by LD).

How does demonstrating that a woman can find employment in the sex industry or the military, both of which have been around for millenia in one form or another, illustrate your point?

Perhaps you subconsciously only see women as sex objects (your first two examples) or military pawns, and not as productive members of society like engineers, etc.

Or perhaps I was making another point entirely. Please don't malign me with evil motives. If I wanted that, I would go back to MAD.

You aren't one of the banned ones? Did you think your arguments would automatically and magically be acceptable here, just because this isn't MAD?

I do not see women as sex objects or military pawns. I was pointing out that the alleged 'progress' is not what it is represented to be.

You don't find women engineers, women astronauts, women basketball coaches, women lawyers, women police officers, women truck drivers... to be examples of progress? How the heck old are you? Because I've been around long enough to remember when such a thing was nigh onto unheard of.

Interestingly, you appear to agree with me, since you view the three jobs I referred to negatively, whereas other feminists hail them as victories for the 'liberation' and 'empowerment' of women.

Source for that please. Call for references. Especially from moderate feminists. Thanks in advance.

[_harmony]

There's a big difference between providing an opportunity to take on a role (which the person may or may not choose to accept) and mandating through legislation or societal fiat the acceptance of that role.

I agree. I have not seen anyone here arguing that roles should be mandated through legislation or social fiat.

And yet they are. And were.

Then I suggest you take your argument to those responsible.

We have. And continue to do so. Which is why things have progressed to the extent that they have.

And yet society expected women to accept the role of mother and homemaker without ever asking her if that's what she wanted, without ever offering other roles or opportunities.

Again, you're preaching to the choir (but let's not mention that men were equally expected to take up the role society appointed them without being provided other roles or opportunities).

What role were men not provided the opportunity to take up? (wow, that's an awkward sentence). Mother? Homemaker? Sex object?

[_Fortigurn]

I suspect there are thousands if not millions more engineers, astronauts, and basketball coaches than there are porn stars, telephone sex line operators, or front line cannon fodder. So I'm wondering why you felt your examples more closely represent women's opportunities than mine?

I wasn't suggesting that they more closely represent women's opportunities than yours.

How does demonstrating that a woman can find employment in the sex industry or the military, both of which have been around for millenia in one form or another, illustrate your point?

Yes the sex industry and the military have been around for millennia. But that doesn't address my point. I gave examples of specific job opportunities which were previously unavailable to women. I did not say that women were previously unable to participate in these industries in any way at all.

The job opportunities for women in those industries which I mentioned are new. There were no women porn stars before the 20th century. There were no women telephone sex operators before the 20th century. There were no women in standing army front line troop divisions before the 20th century (few modern armies even today will permit women to serve on the front line).

Perhaps you subconsciously only see women as sex objects (your first two examples) or military pawns, and not as productive members of society like engineers, etc.

Or perhaps I was making another point entirely. Please don't malign me with evil motives. If I wanted that, I would go back to MAD.

You aren't one of the banned ones?

Yes I am, but there are ways of returning if I wanted to.

Did you think your arguments would automatically and magically be acceptable here, just because this isn't MAD?

Not at all. But this misses my point. My point was that if I wanted people to malign me with evil motives, I would go back to MAD, where such behaviour is standard practice. I have no objection whatever to you disagreeing with my arguments. I do have an objection to you maligning me with evil motives.

I do not see women as sex objects or military pawns. I was pointing out that the alleged 'progress' is not what it is represented to be.

You don't find women engineers, women astronauts, women basketball coaches, women lawyers, women police officers, women truck drivers... to be examples of progress?

Yes I do. I never said they weren't. Please read my post. I said that the alleged 'progress' is not what it is represented to be. I did not deny that there has been progress. I did not say that women engineers, women astronauts, women basketball coaches, women lawyers, women police officers, women truck drivers are not examples of progress.

Source for that please. Call for references.

You could start here:

"Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most feminists are comfortable with. I arrived at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex workers.

Source. This position is referred to as 'sex-positive feminism'. You can find a detailed article on the history and proponents of this position here (a list of specific advocates here). This movement is about 20 years old. I remember being particularly surprised when I first encountered it, though when I read more I understood that it was probably inevitable.

Especially from moderate feminists.

Why? I didn't attribute these views to any particular brand of feminist. But you will find that 'sex-positive' feminists branding anti-pornography feminists as 'extreme' or 'radical', clearly believing themselves to hold a moderate form of feminism in comparison (see McElroy).

[_Fortigurn]

We have. And continue to do so. Which is why things have progressed to the extent that they have.

That's great. All I am asking is that on this forum you don't attack as enemies those who actually agree with you. That includes me.

And yet society expected women to accept the role of mother and homemaker without ever asking her if that's what she wanted, without ever offering other roles or opportunities.

Again, you're preaching to the choir (but let's not mention that men were equally expected to take up the role society appointed them without being provided other roles or opportunities).

What role were men not provided the opportunity to take up? (wow, that's an awkward sentence). Mother? Homemaker? Sex object?[/quote]

Mother (a role universally denied to men to this very day), and homemaker are an excellent start. The role of sex object has almost always been the domain of women, and men have historically been almost completely excluded from this position, or derided when they attempted to take it up, but I'm not particularly interested in that since I don't believe it's an appropriate role for either men or women. I would also argue that early childhood educator is another role which has historically been almost completely denied to men, and still is.

And again, let's not forget that men (as well as women), were forced by society into roles which they did not choose for themselves, often against their will. These societal patterns did not have their origin in some ancient Original Prejudice which arbitrarily held men to be X and women to be Y, they are a legacy of the biological, economic, and environmental pressures faced by our distant ancestors. It was only much later that sociological justifications for these patterns were established.

[_harmony]

I suspect there are thousands if not millions more engineers, astronauts, and basketball coaches than there are porn stars, telephone sex line operators, or front line cannon fodder. So I'm wondering why you felt your examples more closely represent women's opportunities than mine?

I wasn't suggesting that they more closely represent women's opportunities than yours.

Then why use them?

How does demonstrating that a woman can find employment in the sex industry or the military, both of which have been around for millenia in one form or another, illustrate your point?

Yes the sex industry and the military have been around for millennia. But that doesn't address my point. I gave examples of specific job opportunities which were previously unavailable to women. I did not say that women were previously unable to participate in these industries in any way at all.

The job opportunities for women in those industries which I mentioned are new. There were no women porn stars before the 20th century.

Do you think modern man invented pornography? Do you think pornography was unavailable until movies were invented?

There were no women telephone sex operators before the 20th century.

Only because there was no telephone sex. Prior to the invention of the telephone, men watched can-can girls, or visited houses of ill repute, or found other means of taking care of their frustrations.

There were no women in standing army front line troop divisions before the 20th century (few modern armies even today will permit women to serve on the front line).

This is a real sticking point with you, isn't it? It's not the women who stopped themselves from serving; it was the men who stopped them. Men ran the armies, ran the political world, ran society. And not just some men in a few places, but men everywhere throughout the world. Don't blame the women for something over which they had no control.

{snip}

I do not see women as sex objects or military pawns. I was pointing out that the alleged 'progress' is not what it is represented to be.

You don't find women engineers, women astronauts, women basketball coaches, women lawyers, women police officers, women truck drivers... to be examples of progress?

Yes I do. I never said they weren't. Please read my post. I said that the alleged 'progress' is not what it is represented to be. I did not deny that there has been progress. I did not say that women engineers, women astronauts, women basketball coaches, women lawyers, women police officers, women truck drivers are not examples of progress.

Yet you didn't use them. As if they didn't exist. As if those opportunities were open to them at any point in history, prior to just recently. Instead you used the sex industry and the military to illustrate a lack of progress, completely ignoring the progress that is real and legit. Why?

Source for that please. Call for references.

You could start here:

"Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most feminists are comfortable with. I arrived at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex workers.

Source. This position is referred to as 'sex-positive feminism'. You can find a detailed article on the history and proponents of this position here (a list of specific advocates here). This movement is about 20 years old. I remember being particularly surprised when I first encountered it, though when I read more I understood that it was probably inevitable.

Especially from moderate feminists.

Why? I didn't attribute these views to any particular brand of feminist. But you will find that 'sex-positive' feminists branding anti-pornography feminists as 'extreme' or 'radical', clearly believing themselves to hold a moderate form of feminism in comparison (see McElroy).

Hardly mainstream. If society is to be judged by the extremes, then no progress will ever be acknowledged. In the mainstream, progress is being made, as evidenced by the increases in women in legitimate careers that were previously closed to them, careers like engineering, medicine, politics, law, and even truck driving. Your examples of the sex industry and the military are on the extremes, and thus are not universally applicable to the discussion.

[_Fortigurn]

Then why use them?

I have explained this twice before. I used them to show that the progress referred to earlier is not all that it seems.

Do you think modern man invented pornography? Do you think pornography was unavailable until movies were invented?

No. I was not claiming that pornography was invented by modern man, nor that it was unavailable until movies were invented. Again, you seem to be responding to an invisible post. My post referred not to the industry, but to specific jobs within the industry. Surely you're not going to argue that 'telephone sex operator' was a job available to women prior to the 20th century?

Only because there was no telephone sex.

Yes, absolutely. Then progress gave us the telephone. But it still took a lot longer for progress to give us the female telephone sex operator.

Prior to the invention of the telephone, men watched can-can girls, or visited houses of ill repute, or found other means of taking care of their frustrations.

Yes, I agree. So we both agree then that telephone sex operator was not a job available to women prior to the 20th century, and that it is a job which was only provided much later (far later than the invention of the telephone), by 20th century progress.

This is a real sticking point with you, isn't it? It's not the women who stopped themselves from serving; it was the men who stopped them. Men ran the armies, ran the political world, ran society. And not just some men in a few places, but men everywhere throughout the world. Don't blame the women for something over which they had no control.

Once more you are arguing against something I never said. I was not blaming the women for not serving in the armed forces, nor did I claim that they stopped themselves from serving. I actually stated explicitly that they aren't there because they weren't (and aren't), permitted to be there.

Yet you didn't use them. As if they didn't exist.

I didn't use them because they weren't relevant to my point, which was to provide evidence that the progress is not all that it seems to be. The point I have been making is that the progress we see has had negative effects as well as positive effects. I didn't attempt to claim or even imply that positive roles exist. I was making a completely different argument - that the progress we have seen has not been entirely positive.

Since I was arguing that the progress has not been entirely positive, of course I provided examples of what I and you consider to be negative job roles for women. Since you were arguing that the progress has been entirely positive, of course you provided examples of what you and I consider to be positive job roles for women.

Hardly mainstream.

I don't know what you mean by 'mainstream', but the list of 'sex-positive' feminists include feminists whom most would consider to be 'mainstream'.

If society is to be judged by the extremes, then no progress will ever be acknowledged.

I agree. But I am not judging society by the extremes. Ironically it's the 'sex-positive' feminists which label people like you and I as extremists (see the links I provided).

In the mainstream, progress is being made, as evidenced by the increases in women in legitimate careers that were previously closed to them, careers like engineering, medicine, politics, law, and even truck driving.

I agree. I have always agreed.

Your examples of the sex industry and the military are on the extremes, and thus are not universally applicable to the discussion.

I have not argued that they are universally applicable. You appear to imagine that I have been arguing that no progress has been taking place at all, or that the progress has been overwhelmingly negative. I have not been arguing this. I have simply been arguing that the alleged progress is not all that it is represented to be. I believe we have a lot further to go. I am not satisfied with the status quo. Maybe you are, but I'm not.

[_ajax18]

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?

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.

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