Question for Feminists [Archive]

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 07:14 AM

I often here Femi-Nazi’s, my word for feminist talking about how men have historically oppressed women, how women are not free anywhere, how everything bad in the world has come from me. 

There solution to this problem is that:

1)    be a lesbian

2)    Men need to be more feminine

3)    Men and women must be made equal in all things.

I won’t comment on homosexuality because those views will definitely be controversial and draw away from this post.  The other 2 options are stupid.

Personally I think that men and women are equal, in a yin-yang sort of way, but we are not the same, and should not try to be.  We are different for a reason and have different task, but our equality comes in our ability to balance each other.

I am a big fan of history and here is a question I always ask femi-Nazi’s and it typically drives them into ultra lefwing rants that often are illogical  and extremely emotional. 

Anyway I will try it here.

Record history has been for about 10,000 years, give or take a few centuries and in that time I can not think of one major city state or empire, that we know of through historical records were women have been the dominant economic or political power in the society.

Why is that?  If men and women are “the same (a little different from equal),” why is that?

From what I have read.  Women tend to do better in school than boys, and they are better communicators.  They tend to work better in groups because of this I think.   Women score 3-4 points lower on IQ test, but this is really not significant, and it tends to be on the spatial reasoning section, which correlates to math ability, okay so if this is to be believed, women are slightly less at math than men…once again this is not significant to me.

So if women are pretty much as smart as men and can communicate better, form groups better why are we having these conversations all the time of women being oppressed.  I mean it would appear at some point in history that women would have got together and subjugated men, took over, enslaved men, used us for physical labor, etc.

I mean yeah men are stronger, but stronger is not as import as people believe.  Smarter is.  Neanderthals were stronger and some of our other “evolutionary cousins” but we pretty much whipped them out.   Mongolians and Hun were probably not as big as Europeans but this did not stop them from using their superior fighting technique to decimate Eastern and Central Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, most of East Asia, etc.

I do know of some societies were women do rule, but they have never been major societies, there are some tribes in Africa were women rule.  In Tongo women have a lot of economic power.  Hakka in China traditionally the women chose their spouses, but they still didn’t run the politics of the community.

There is that legend of the Amazons…I guess.

IS there are reason things have been like they have been?  Maybe..?

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 07:17 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> There solution to this problem is that:

1)be a lesbian

2)Men need to be more feminine

3)Men and women must be made equal in all things. [/b][/quote]
that is an awfully short list.  i've heard that 4th interpretation you personally prefer, from feminists before.  i don't think you should group all feminists with femi-nazis.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 07:37 AM

SunWu:

Okay that was a short list, but that is what I hear most often.

Anyway I read once that:

Women humanize men, but men enable women to live in an environment where they can be human. B)

I also read (and agree) that if you put a group or men on one desert island and a group or women (doesn't matter nationality)...

The women will form a relatively flat socialist system full of bureaucracy stuff will get done, but it will be a slow process, full of politics and backstabbing.  It will be relatively peaceful though, although little headway will be made in technological development.

The men will form a strict hierarchy, probably totalitarian with a clear leader and it will probably be violent, but very efficient, technology will be superior and islands environment will be decimated.

maxdacat

07-23-2003, 07:39 AM

wot i don't get is that you can be a feminist....ok fine but what about men.....we can't very well go around calling ourselves masculinists

anyway option 4 would be to chill the fuck out!

littlebutfierce

07-23-2003, 07:42 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 06:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I often here Femi-Nazi’s, my word for feminist [/b][/quote]
Why the hell should I bother engaging you in dialogue after an offensive opening salvo like that? I don't waste my time on shit like that.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 07:44 AM

littlebutfierce:

The chose to engage in dialogue is yours.  I don't bite my tongue for anyone, this is the rant section, it is my rant.  I personally don't believe in Political (Left Wing Commie) Correctness...no offense.

I say it straight...no chaser.

littlebutfierce

07-23-2003, 07:49 AM

It's not an issue of PC-ness. Clearly your choice of words shows that you have a real big problems w/feminists. Would you defend a person who referred to all Asian people as chinks or gooks as "just not being PC" either? Yeah, right.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 07:55 AM

Yeah I have a problem with Femi-Nazis...and?

If I didn't I would not have started this thread, I think that is obvious.

Your comparrison of race and Feminist is way off, and I won't argue with you.  If you don't want to discuss this topic for any reason, please don't.  That is your choice.

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 08:09 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 10:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> littlebutfierce:

The chose to engage in dialogue is yours. I don't bite my tongue for anyone, this is the rant section, it is my rant. I personally don't believe in Political (Left Wing Commie) Correctness...no offense.

I say it straight...no chaser. [/b][/quote]
i would have to agree with littlebutfierce on this one.  YW is a public forum, and anything you have to say is assumed by us to be addressed to any and all readers.  please refer to this post (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?showtopic=2726) on what kind of content we expect you to post and to not post.

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 08:11 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 10:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yeah I have a problem with Femi-Nazis...and?

If I didn't I would not have started this thread, I think that is obvious.

Your comparrison of race and Feminist is way off, and I won't argue with you. If you don't want to discuss this topic for any reason, please don't. That is your choice. [/b][/quote]
well, one can make the generalisation that all black people are like Al Sharpton, and start a thread off by calling all black people something equally as offensive to feminists as "Femi-Nazi".

deez nuts

07-23-2003, 08:26 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yeah I have a problem with Femi-Nazis...and?

If I didn't I would not have started this thread, I think that is obvious.

Your comparrison of race and Feminist is way off, and I won't argue with you. If you don't want to discuss this topic for any reason, please don't. That is your choice. [/b][/quote]
anything posted, if it's within the yw guidelines, is free game.

none of this: if you don't like it then don't read it and respond to it shit.

it can be just as easily said that if you don't want to be criticized for your views from other members/posters, then don't post it for public scrutiny, analysis or criticism. it's as simple as that.

please play nicely with the other members and let them play or don't play.

Everglaze

07-23-2003, 08:37 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 06:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Personally I think that men and women are equal, in a yin-yang sort of way, but we are not the same, and should not try to be. We are different for a reason and have different task, but our equality comes in our ability to balance each other.

[/b][/quote]
That's the way I think too.

Generally speaking, I say that men are born the way they are and women are born the way they are so to try to top each other in genders is just nonsensical. Sure, I understand that these females are angry for being treated "lesser" but that doesn't mean they need to take feminism to the outer boundaries where it becomes more of an anti-male movement rather than just equal rights.

But that's just my opinion.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 08:42 AM

Okay...I would edit the initial post, but the time has expired.

Let's say:

I often here Femi-Nazi’s, my word for feminist extremist who are really men bashers, who make it the focus of their lives to point out to everyone how men have historically oppressed women, how women are not free anywhere, how everything bad in the world has come from me

kimpossible

07-23-2003, 09:02 AM

I can relate to the dislike of extremists, including feminist extremists, but I also recognize without the presence of women (and foreward thinking men I guess) like this throughout history I might not today have the right to vote, own land, access to birth control, find protection under domestic violence laws, have rape considered a violent crime against a woman rather than a property crime against the men who 'own' her, etc.

I've said this before in another thread. I think feminists are easy targets for men. They're often portrayed as busybody diesel dikes who should stop wasting their time on silly issues such as women's rights and go find themselves a man.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 09:24 AM

Hello Happa:

Well I wouldn't call them all a busybody dikes.  Women's issues are also imporant, don't get me wrong.

Still i would like someone to answer the question.  Why is it that throughout history men have been in  a superior position?

kimpossible

07-23-2003, 09:36 AM

Everglaze

07-23-2003, 10:14 AM

Well, the Biblicial references about men "working" and finding hardships through that and women having babies and having hardships through that could be the approach for people (of course I'm only assuming). They may have kept that routine till the sixties when females actually started feminism.

Since men are known to be of strength, they took up all the major niches in life. Plus, I heard that men are better in working with high-tech science and things related to that. Women are more on the emotional side and have weaker physical skills when it comes to things that relate to enormous amount of energy in both physical and mental coping. The high-tech things, things related to culinary, things in a wider scale. Women are known to do more of the studying aspects and lesser-energetic things. I also heard that women rely on memory and men rely on gaining knowledge and not just memories? something like that in another discussion. I'm not saying any of this is true, it's just what I think.

So since men got the first start with success in all these areas, women finally decided that it would be time for a role change and they created feminism (not only because of oppression). Men continue to dominate the upper card because they're continuing their routine and that their ways of gaining the upper card in society is important when it comes to organizing bigger issues related to running as world leaders and things like that.

Anyway, you can decline my opinion if you want haha, that's just what I think..it's not fact or anything.

kasia

07-23-2003, 10:28 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 08:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Hello Happa:

Well I wouldn't call them all a busybody dikes. Women's issues are also imporant, don't get me wrong.

Still i would like someone to answer the question. Why is it that throughout history men have been in a superior position? [/b][/quote]
why were whites able to enslave blacks?  is it because blacks are less intelligent?

kasia

07-23-2003, 10:42 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (professor frink @ Jul 23 2003, 09:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> the history of this world have not been always male-dominated. in fact, in almost all early civilizations, the female was the center; a basic matriarchy. venus statues were carved, the womb was worshipped, and everything in nature and culture became linked to maternity and fertility. a gradual shift took place when men started to believe that their penises held the real power to life (j/k - not really).

love,
prof. frink

p.s. i have such an irk with people, especially female, who start off with, "well, i'm not a feminist or anything....." why has feminism turned into such an shameful entity only associated with butch lesbians or hairy academics (and there's nothing wrong with that!)? in its most basic, fundamental premise, feminism was created to promote the idea that females had the exact same priviledges, rights, and opportunities as their males counterparts in all fields of life, culture, work, family, etc. so all this bullshit that, "well, you know, some males and females are't really that physically equal.....", while biologically true, doesn't matter: what matters is the point that these "physically strenuous" jobs that women might not be able to handle are often social constructions, and though biologically true, should still be given the chance to try. one last thing: people often forget that female oppresion also includes the male; so as feminists, one cannot forget that males also experience limitations and obstacles because of our culture's tendancy to gender stratify everything! [/b][/quote]
ditto.  check out this thread. (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?showtopic=4904&st=0&hl=disclaimers)

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 10:49 AM

Kaisa:

why were whites able to enslave blacks?  is it because blacks are less intelligent?

No, I would not say it was becaues blacks were less intelligent but whites have not enslaved or oppressed the majority of black people for 10,000 years (recorded history)...you can't  even compare that.

This dynamic is different.

Professor Frink:

Well I know that early CHinese accounts of Japan comment on tribes some of them being led by women, and in some West African tribes women have high status, becase of religion, women are thought to be closer to the "Spirt world" but I still can not think of any major civilization in history were women have dominated over men and led that civilization.

kimpossible

07-23-2003, 11:08 AM

kasia

07-23-2003, 11:18 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Kaisa:

No, I would not say it was becaues blacks were less intelligent but whites have not enslaved or oppressed the majority of black people for 10,000 years (recorded history)...you can't even compare that.

This dynamic is different. [/b][/quote]
how so?  if the only difference is the period of time of oppression, by your reasoning, can't it just be inferred that there is a greater gap between women and men than blacks and whites, but that a gap nonetheless exists?

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 11:18 AM

HelloHappa:

It is different because black people have not been "oppressed" by whites for the majority of recorded history or even the 1/4 of it, that is a recent thing in the last 500 years, and it is not all black people.  You can argue about things like NeoImperialism, but their are no whites directly lording over blacks in Africa.

According to many Femi-Nazi's men have been tyrants and lorded over women forever, always oppressing them.

that is a very different senario. 

It is like I am your boss, and 8 hours a day for 10 years I treat you like crap...eventually something happens, and you quit, you kill me, you get promoted, move to another company whatever.

You can say I oppressed you.

That is similar to black and white relationship.

that is very different from this senario.

That is a different senario.  It is like saying, everywhere for all time that we can remember women were treated like crap by male bosses in companies or mom and pop stores.

See the difference...one was a temporary situation...one was a very long term, so long that we can't even remember when it started.

That is the situation women claim.

kasia

07-23-2003, 11:22 AM

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 11:25 AM

kasia :

Okay we will follow your reasoning...if this gap occured, why did it occur with men and women are the same?

Unlike black and whites who lived on different continents and had some overlapping contact but nothing compared to the sexes, I mean...you can't get closer than the relationship between men and women...you can't have one without the other.

So how did this occur, and why have women never led a major civilization or any civilization that I know of, any major country, or city-state.  We are not talking about Kings and Queens, I mean women holding the majority of economic and political power.  Men being secondary and subservient.

kimpossible

07-23-2003, 11:28 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 10:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> See the difference...one was a temporary situation...one was a very long term, so long that we can't even remember when it started.

That is the situation women claim. [/b][/quote]
Mmm. Not really to be honest. I understand what you're saying though and I can see how you see it as more valid. I guess I think more in terms of equal pay, able to get ahead at work (glass ceiling), the fact that women can hold a job now that is not a nun or prositute, domestic violence laws that usually fail women because many are killed by their abusers, right to reproductive choices... and some international issues like child marriage, importance of education for female as well as male children and anything else covered in something like CEDAW or development in general.

kasia

07-23-2003, 11:31 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 10:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> kasia :

Okay we will follow your reasoning...if this gap occured, why did it occur with men and women are the same?

Unlike black and whites who lived on different continents and had some overlapping contact but nothing compared to the sexes, I mean...you can't get closer than the relationship between men and women...you can't have one without the other.

So how did this occur, and why have women never led a major civilization or any civilization that I know of, any major country, or city-state. We are not talking about Kings and Queens, I mean women holding the majority of economic and political power. Men being secondary and subservient. [/b][/quote]
same reason it occurred if blacks and whites are the same.

and you answered your own question.  the reason why gender discrimination is harder to get away from is precisely because of the intimate relationship between males & females.  blacks can shun whites (or try to) and form their own communities.  women can't do that.  additionally, in the past, women were all basically housewives and spent most of their time trying to take care of their husband's home - not out with other women forming a social consciouness. 

blah blah.  i have to study. 

re: political leadership.  why are you focusing on the past.  check out the present.  i bet i hold more political power than you  :D

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 11:40 AM

Kaisa:

If you can't see it, don't worry about it.

Hello Happa:

You see it, but these situations did not happen overnight, they occured over a long period of time, how did women get in this inferior position

kasia

07-23-2003, 11:46 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 10:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Kaisa:

If you can't see it, don't worry about it.

[/b][/quote]
is that your best response?  you still haven't answered my question about south africa?

torogi

07-23-2003, 11:56 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 10:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
According to many Femi-Nazi's men have been tyrants and lorded over women forever, always oppressing them.

that is a very different senario.

...

That is a different senario. It is like saying, everywhere for all time that we can remember women were treated like crap by male bosses in companies or mom and pop stores.

See the difference...one was a temporary situation...one was a very long term, so long that we can't even remember when it started.

That is the situation women claim. [/b][/quote]
Looking back through ages and modern time oppression on women, I think that statement by what you call "femi-nazis" deserves a consideration. I cannot see any reason why you're very quick to dismiss that.

Try to widen your point of view and look at the issues women are facing in other cultures and countries. You'll gonna see that they're facing same or even worse persecutions and suffering as compared to racially motivated torts or mistreatments. Not to mention, this had been happening for ages.

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 11:57 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well I know that early CHinese accounts of Japan comment on tribes some of them being led by women, and in some West African tribes women have high status, becase of religion, women are thought to be closer to the "Spirt world" but I still can not think of any major civilization in history were women have dominated over men and led that civilization. [/b][/quote]
the Cherokee people had a matriarchal society, where property, prestige, etc etc, were passed down the female line.  but i don't know if the Cherokee nation can be considered a "major civilisation in history".

torogi

07-23-2003, 12:00 PM

I'm sorry about the duplicate posts. I kept getting error messages. I was not even aware that it went through. :blush:

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 12:01 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (torogi @ Jul 23 2003, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm sorry about the duplicate posts. I kept getting error messages. I was not even aware that it went through. :blush: [/b][/quote]
we are experiencing technical difficulties right now.  but don't worry about the duplicate posts.  i've deleted them.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 12:54 PM

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 12:59 PM

SunWuKung:

There are tribes in Africa like the CHerokee and Jews also pass down lineage by the female line.  Basically if your mother was a Jews, you are a Jew.  If your mother was a Jew and your father waas, you still have to convert (according to Orthadox Jews anyway)...

Still women were not and have not been running things...that is more about how wealth is divided up...

I don't know about the Cherokee though...maybe women headed or had a equal authority in their political life.

kasia

07-23-2003, 01:08 PM

coagulated fat

07-23-2003, 01:12 PM

I agree with prof frink about the use of the word feminist.  It's become like an insult in our culture.  Feminist: advocate  of the political and socioeconomic equality of men and women.

As for why women continue to maintain an inferior position in society, I would like to quote Carrie Cat: "No written law has ever been more binding than unwritten custom supported by popular opinion."

I prefer to argue with someone who has a somewhat intelligent grasp on the topic at hand, so I think I will refrain from posting much more on this thread.

AngryABCGirl

07-23-2003, 01:18 PM

I think women in ancient societies were always biologically limited to being in secondary positions.  First of all in the past, factors like physical strength and size were much more important than they are now and used to constantly hunt for food, work in the fields, and especially to fight wars, in those aspects, women would never compete with men.  Also women have the children and are more connected to them at an early age, ie breast-feeding, and need to be with the child more than men physically, and always ended up raising the kids leaving them far from taking positions of power. 

Of course now, society has shifted and things like physical power dont matter much anymore in terms of running companies and making money, where some would argue women have more advantages of doing so because women tend to cooperate more, have higher EQs, and have better abilities in communication, ie why women tend to learn more languages.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 01:22 PM

in the beginning, as in when chimpanzees evolved to human beings, life around the world was dedicated to the female species. was it short-lived - i guess. i believe male patriarchy came along with the advent of agriculturalism. but enough of this academic poo-poo.

Prof Fink:

What are you talking about. Chimps live in a male dominated society, with males having multiple partners...Gorillas too. There is usually a lead male, who dominates many females, until he is too old and a younger more aggressive male takes control.

Hell sounds like many early hunter/gather human societies.

Actually in many areas of the world, until European colonization men could marry more than one woman, this trend didn't end till the last 500 years or so. Even in ancient China and Vietnam,wealthy men often had more than one wife. Middle East, many Muslim nations, much of Africa...

AzNBuffGrL :

THANK YOU

This is what I was trying to get to.

I will comment more later, have to do some real work right now...but I do argue one point.  Women were the original farmers, not men.  I have to give credit where it is due.  I think farming was invented by women because women were the gathers, while men hunted...most very primitive societies still have most of the farming done by women.

moschikat

07-23-2003, 02:57 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 08:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Still i would like someone to answer the question. Why is it that throughout history men have been in a superior position? [/b][/quote]
Hmm, just look at religion . . . God, Allah, Buddha, Yaweh . . . hey! Something's in common there!
(Thank goodness for Kwan Yin okay, and maybe Shiva . .  :D )

other than that, physically speaking, have you ever met a man who's been raped? (by a woman?)

what's that saying? "The meek shall inherit the earth" . .. and i'm tellin' ya - the devil is a lady.  :lol:

Emperor_Mike

07-23-2003, 03:22 PM

In centuries past there existed a rather shallow perception that women were only fit to bear children and maintain the household. Coupled with the lack of general education in most parts of the world, this rather unfair conclusion lived on until women became more educated and therefore more in tune with the remarkable opportunities open to them in society.

There have been many brilliant women across the broad spectrum of time. Women like Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni led armies against the Roman conquerors during the days of the Empire, the Pharoah Hatshepsut rule Egypt with great wisdom and proved to be extremely capable, Cleopatra proved just as agile in her role as a sovereign, Madame Pompadour - the courtesan to Louis XV of France was the real power behind the throne, the Rani Lakshmi Bai - Queen of Jhansi who led the Sepoy rebellion against the British in 1856 and so on and so forth.

The only real inhibition to women doing well in the world is a faulty view that men have "more right" to certain roles and occupations. With better education and a more open society, women can do whatever they'd like. It has very little to do with genetics, brainpower, talent, raw physical attributes and has a lot to do with the types of opportunities available out there. In the past there weren't many, but now there are so it makes sense that we are witnessing the opposite sex taking up the challenges that were once only open to men.

As far as militant feminists are concerned, they are a bit off, to say the least. The world can do without extremists of this kind (or any kind for that matter.) However, free speech is a right and they are entitled to their own opinions, regardless of how terribly skewed and nonsensical it may be.

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 04:22 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> SunWuKung:

There are tribes in Africa like the CHerokee and Jews also pass down lineage by the female line. Basically if your mother was a Jews, you are a Jew. If your mother was a Jew and your father waas, you still have to convert (according to Orthadox Jews anyway)...

Still women were not and have not been running things...that is more about how wealth is divided up...

I don't know about the Cherokee though...maybe women headed or had a equal authority in their political life. [/b][/quote]
actually i think women could have ran things for the Cherokee people. and just the division of wealth itself gives a lot of power to women, if posessions are passed down the female line. 

but i'm not 100% sure.  let me check with my Cherokee friend and i'll get back to you.

(edit: ok that sounded like a joke, but i honestly have a Cherokee friend. she's 1/2 Cherokee, 1/4 Sioux, and 1/4 French.)

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 04:30 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Women were the original farmers, not men. I have to give credit where it is due. I think farming was invented by women because women were the gathers, while men hunted...most very primitive societies still have most of the farming done by women. [/b][/quote]
just being devil's advocate here, but are you so sure?  can you post up some links for us to read about this or is this just your opinion?

tapestrybabe

07-23-2003, 04:43 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Jul 23 2003, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>just being devil's advocate here, but are you so sure? can you post up some links for us to read about this or is this just your opinion?[/b][/quote]
But I'd bet if you looked in a dictionary
in any language spoken in this room, if there was a picture alongside the
definition of a farmer, it would be a picture of a man. But if you go all the
way back to the original hunter/gatherer division of labor among humankind, a
strong case can be made that women were the original farmers. The men would go
hunt. Sometimes, they'd come home with a wild boar ... sometimes they
wouldn't. It was women, by and large, who grew and harvested the crops,
ensuring the village had enough to eat.

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=wome...es/1998/07/0267 (http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=women+were+the+original+farmers&ei=UTF-8&url=RYS1juKNNVkJ:www.usda.gov/news/releases/1998/07/0267)

Tao

07-23-2003, 05:24 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AzNBuffGrL @ Jul 23 2003, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think women in ancient societies were always biologically limited to being in secondary positions. First of all in the past, factors like physical strength and size were much more important than they are now and used to constantly hunt for food, work in the fields, and especially to fight wars, in those aspects, women would never compete with men. Also women have the children and are more connected to them at an early age, ie breast-feeding, and need to be with the child more than men physically, and always ended up raising the kids leaving them far from taking positions of power.
[/b][/quote]
Actually that's not entirely true. Anthropologists have studied ancient human civilizations, when people were still hunter gatherers, and have recently (five years ago) discovered that women had the same (if not more) responsibilities than men. The reserachers found many fossils of mammoths surrounded by both men and women hunters. There were other examples too, but my memory is fuzzy on this. You can check out the article in Discover magazine. It was supposedly a very big shock to the scientific community when they found this out, so you know that the evidence had to be convincing for them to change the stereotypical view of roles in ancient societies.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 05:33 PM

Sunwu:

The conflict between hunters, nomads, and farmers is historic and traditional and is based on land claims. J. R. Harlan in Crops and Man (1992) points out that present-day hunter gatherers know how to cultivate crops but do not because it is too much work. Probably women, not involved in the hunt, were the first farmers. See Reading 3-1.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history...re03/lec3l.html (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/lec3l.html)

this is just one example,, but I have read this many places...to my knowledge it is excepted by most anthropologist that women were the first farmers, probably during man's "hunter/gathering phase" women with children at least stayed home and "gathered" and figured out growing cycled and life cycles of plants.  Makes sense.

nonamerasian

07-23-2003, 05:52 PM

Give me a feministic society over a male chauvinistic society any day.

The feminist will give me a chance to do what ever it is I’m physically or mentally able to do because I’m human and I deserve that right.  A pig won’t give me a chance because they believe all men are innately superior.  They will tell me to move out of the way and head into the kitchen until I grow a dick and can be taken seriously.

It’s the same reason I’d rather a colorblind society over a racist society.

You may not see them as being relatable, but really, they are.

These types of societies don’t yield the results they do necessarily because the groups kept down are innately inferior, but rather because of the perception that these groups are innately inferior keeps them down.

Are Blacks innately inferior to Whites?

Of course Blacks weren’t enslaved as long as woman.  It’s not as if men and women originated from different landmasses, so what’s the point?

Blacks in position of power, living comfortable a community, or merely reading were hard to find in the U.S. until after emancipation.

Then there were more Black leaders, communities like Rosewood, and schools that sent Blacks to colleges. 

Social expectations and the implementation of such expectations, by those in power and those lacking power, play a role in society that should not be ignored.

Blacks had the ability to do what they did pre-emancipation as they did post.

That is unless one wants to argue that something changed in the physical structure of the Black brain after emancipation to allow Blacks to do what they couldn’t before, but be real.  Social expectations have changed for Blacks and hence the result.

Woman can be socially and politically equal to men if society allows it.

Just because men have ruled society doesn’t mean that women haven’t been capable to do the same thing.

Woman now have more social and political pull than they have had in the U.S. ever.

Again, this isn’t due to a change in the structure of the brain, but rather a change of the status quo.

RasFarengi

07-23-2003, 06:02 PM

Still no answering the question.  My question is how did this sytem originate, if everything else was eqal, how did it start.  There are many opinions but I can go into a detailed logic discussion to how subSahara Africa did not advance technologically or socially as much as Europe, so that Europe had the advantage and was able to subjegate Africa. 

The situation with men and women is quite different form "races..."

As you said men and women did not evolve apart.

So if all things were equal, how did it end up that in most countries in the world, at least for recorded history (the last 10,000 years) in all major civilization (although their have been acceptions in smaller tribes and such) have men remained economically/politically dominent over women?

nonamerasian

07-23-2003, 06:26 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 09:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Still no answering the question. My question is how did this sytem originate, if everything else was eqal, how did it start. There are many opinions but I can go into a detailed logic discussion to how subSahara Africa did not advance technologically or socially as much as Europe, so that Europe had the advantage and was able to subjegate Africa.

The situation with men and women is quite different form "races..."

As you said men and women did not evolve apart.

So if all things were equal, how did it end up that in most countries in the world, at least for recorded history (the last 10,000 years) in all major civilization (although their have been acceptions in smaller tribes and such) have men remained economically/politically dominent over women?[/b][/quote]
It’s moot.

Are you assuming that because we don’t know the cause our society’s ways that it must be biological in origin?

I believe slave masters thought the same way, you know.  And if the practice wasn’t abolished, it probably would have been used as a justification 1,000 years from now.

It has been the excuse as to why women have had to stay at home for so long, HOWEVER, we now know that given the chance, women narrow the gender gap.

If the inability to take a position of power is supposedly innate, why the change?

The change is not due to a change in the innate ability of the gender, but rather a change in the status quo.

coagulated fat

07-23-2003, 07:39 PM

kasia

07-23-2003, 07:46 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nonamerasian @ Jul 23 2003, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It’s moot.
[/b][/quote]
exactly.  even given the fact that women were never historically in positions of power, what difference does it make on how we should proceed?

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 08:47 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tao @ Jul 23 2003, 08:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Actually that's not entirely true. Anthropologists have studied ancient human civilizations, when people were still hunter gatherers, and have recently (five years ago) discovered that women had the same (if not more) responsibilities than men. The reserachers found many fossils of mammoths surrounded by both men and women hunters. [/b][/quote]
err...  couldn't this just mean that they were sitting around eating the meat off the same mammoths?

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 08:48 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Sunwu:

The conflict between hunters, nomads, and farmers is historic and traditional and is based on land claims. J. R. Harlan in Crops and Man (1992) points out that present-day hunter gatherers know how to cultivate crops but do not because it is too much work. Probably women, not involved in the hunt, were the first farmers. See Reading 3-1.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history...re03/lec3l.html (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/lec3l.html)

this is just one example,, but I have read this many places...to my knowledge it is excepted by most anthropologist that women were the first farmers, probably during man's "hunter/gathering phase" women with children at least stayed home and "gathered" and figured out growing cycled and life cycles of plants. Makes sense. [/b][/quote]
ok.  yeah it makes sense.  but i was also wondering if it was all just speculation on your part or if experts generally think so also.

SunWuKong

07-23-2003, 08:50 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nonamerasian @ Jul 23 2003, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> That is unless one wants to argue that something changed in the physical structure of the Black brain after emancipation to allow Blacks to do what they couldn’t before, but be real. Social expectations have changed for Blacks and hence the result. [/b][/quote]
this can be argued.  those slaves that dared to rebel, or were "too smart for their own good", or whatever, would have been killed off.  there was a certain degree of selective breeding of slaves back in those days.

Emperor_Mike

07-23-2003, 10:14 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Jul 23 2003, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Still not answering the question. My question is how did this system originate, if everything else was equal, how did it start? [/b][/quote]
I'm inclined to think that various social factors contributed to the fact that women were once considered second class citizens. Ancient societies developed along the lines of the strong gaining control and power over the weak. As women are often physically less gifted than men, the primitive mind, fostered by a method of thought used to determine the qualities of leadership (that is to say, one that was centered purely upon physical prowess) used what was considered to be the "norm" and applied it throughout their societies. Hence we had the erroneous assumption for the next few centuries that women are not as capable as males. It's a simplistic answer, but I'm no anthropologist so I don't feel that it is my duty to elaborate on something I have very little knowledge of. If you feel that you need more to go on in order to satiate your curiosity, may I suggest Google or a visit to your local university's anthropology department? :)

Emperor_Mike

07-23-2003, 10:23 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kasia @ Jul 23 2003, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nonamerasian @ Jul 23 2003, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It’s moot.
[/b][/quote]
exactly. even given the fact that women were never historically in positions of power, what difference does it make on how we should proceed? [/b][/quote]
Actually, many women were in places of power; some extraordinarily so. Here are some of the more noteworthy rulers and generals who were deemed to be "the weaker sex:"

1) The female Egyptian Pharoah Hatshepsut
2) The female Egyptian Pharoah Cleopatra
3) Royal Mistress of Louis XV and Powerbroker Madame de Pompadour
4) Rani Lakshmibai, Queen of Jhansi and General who died sword in hand
5) Queen Victoria
6) Queen Elizabeth I
7) Empress Wu Zhao
8) Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni and battlefield General
9) The Empress Elizabeth of Russia
10) Empress Anna of Russia
11) Saint Joan of Arc, liberator of France and the "Maid of Orleans."

The ones I mentioned above were truly gifted in the arts of politics and war in times when men were the key figures in society.

Eros

07-24-2003, 12:06 AM

I'd say it's because women originally weren't equal.  They had the untapped potential to be but problems got in the way.  Now, granted, there is the theory of the religions based around the fertile earth (life creating womb, the Isis Era) that later gave way to the Sun (sperm, Osiris Era) however I've really never seen strong proof of this, only speculation.  One of the major hinderances to primitive woman would be having kids.  They'd have to have kids in order to keep their tribe alive.  Unfortunetely, this also make them unfit to be warriors and rulers for large amounts of time.  So, men have the power.  Because religions/philosphies are often based off the culture they are from, the male deities are stronger.  Which means humans should follow the divine example.  Humans start having a less need for survival so woman can take a stronger role in society.  But, you know, that goes against the gods and we don't want to offend them.  Plus, in many societies, women were little more than possesions and possessions can't have power.

Speed millenia into the future.  Women still have a lower status because that is the better way.  Let's focus on the US as an example of breaking this cycle.  Crap, men are at war and there is no one to take over their jobs.  Except... women?  Well, apparently the can do a man's job... but when the men come back, there still is the threat of unplanned pregnancies.  Few decades pass.  A magic Pill appear.  Women gain more control on their birthing cycle.  So, now women, who have proven they can do things as well as men and no longer have the treat of common unplanned pregnancy.  Which makes them equal, aside from restrictions society places on them.

I know this is overly simplified.  But it gets my point across.  And, as people have previously said, who cares why they were originally obressed.  It's better to look at what can prevent the oppression now.

As for fem-nazis.  Meh...  every race/sex/relgion/sexual orientation/society/book club has it's people who rage.  That's life.

BTW- isn't there a pretty matriarical society in India?  I know that society treats men much like woman used to be in the rest of the world (dowry, not getting an inheritance, etc.) but I don't know how the government truly works.

tapestrybabe

07-24-2003, 04:52 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Emperor_Mike @ Jul 24 2003, 01:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kasia @ Jul 23 2003, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nonamerasian @ Jul 23 2003, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It’s moot.
[/b][/quote]
exactly. even given the fact that women were never historically in positions of power, what difference does it make on how we should proceed? [/b][/quote]
Actually, many women were in places of power; some extraordinarily so. Here are some of the more noteworthy rulers and generals who were deemed to be "the weaker sex:"

1) The female Egyptian Pharoah Hatshepsut
2) The female Egyptian Pharoah Cleopatra
3) Royal Mistress of Louis XV and Powerbroker Madame de Pompadour
4) Rani Lakshmibai, Queen of Jhansi and General who died sword in hand
5) Queen Victoria
6) Queen Elizabeth I
7) Empress Wu Zhao
8) Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni and battlefield General
9) The Empress Elizabeth of Russia
10) Empress Anna of Russia
11) Saint Joan of Arc, liberator of France and the "Maid of Orleans."

The ones I mentioned above were truly gifted in the arts of politics and war in times when men were the key figures in society. [/b][/quote]
yeah, just how like theres a focus on asian studies...
cuz its not fully taught in regular history classes...

i think maybe thats why we have a focus on women studies...
cuz the history of females, female leaders...
dont receive the same attention as the males...
in the regular classes...

PS: and oh yeah, and dont disregard the asian females nominated for the asian female role model thread... asian females with leadership positions, the power to influence, and change the course of history... etc...

Tao

07-24-2003, 06:24 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Jul 23 2003, 11:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> err... couldn't this just mean that they were sitting around eating the meat off the same mammoths? [/b][/quote]
not likely. I finally found the article. http://208.245.156.153/archive/output.cfm?ID=1430

shy

07-24-2003, 07:32 AM

interesting thread... some generalizations that i didn't like but enough people already pointed them out...

i've done some studies on feminism and such in univeristy. i never thought of myself as being extremely feminism though. just because my personal beliefs are that it's about time we try and concentrate a bit more on the commonalities between a man and a woman (focus more on human rights) to get some balance back, as i feel that we've spent much of our time focusing on the differences.

not to say, however, that differences aren't important. we're all unique creatures anyway...

i suppose the problem is that it at least in the western civilization, women haven't been treated as equal. and in the history of the western civilization, it's been longer that women haven't been treated as equal... yes? and there's greater pressure these days to have a double income AND be good parents. though things are improving, women are still seen as the domestic type and men are still seen as the provider of the family.

but... i'm personally not one to use this to 'hate men' by any means. i know that things need to take time and equal out a bit. and even then, i think it's unrealistic to think that things will even out completely. there will always be ups and downs.

one thing i have noticed lately is that SO many commercials still show the women as the domestic role. it's still mostly the women cleaning... it's still mostly the women cooking... it's still the women taking the kids grocery shopping... the only consistently progress commercial are actually anything to do with sports/athletic wear, power drinks/food, etc.

i find these sexist commercials funny. especially since i'm the one that possesses the career drive and my fiance possesses the domestic traits. he'll be taking of time for paternity leave when my maternity leave finishes.

Deadpool

07-24-2003, 02:52 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shy @ Jul 24 2003, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

one thing i have noticed lately is that SO many commercials still show the women as the domestic role. it's still mostly the women cleaning... it's still mostly the women cooking... it's still the women taking the kids grocery shopping... the only consistently progress commercial are actually anything to do with sports/athletic wear, power drinks/food, etc.

i find these sexist commercials funny. especially since i'm the one that possesses the career drive and my fiance possesses the domestic traits. he'll be taking of time for paternity leave when my maternity leave finishes. [/b][/quote]
What about those commercials that depict women emasculating and abusing men?
If the roles were reversed youd have every feminist org coming down on most of the commercials on TV
Hypocrisy methinks?

OH BTW. Women are North Americas biggest consumers. So theres reasons why Commecials depict women or geared towards women.
Its marketing.

krome

07-24-2003, 03:09 PM

Well, let's start off by questioning the blanket feminist premise that women are oppressed.

There are many measures for this and I can think of many instances (dating & relationships, in particular) where women often hold the power and upper hand over men. And it also varies by individual. Certainly, there have been many women who have political, financial or other forms of power over men. So before we accept this statement carte blanche - as an Azn man in 2003 I have to seriously ask - am I really the oppressor - or the oppressed?  Are SOME women oppressed?  Sure.  But are many MEN ALSO oppressed?  You betcha. 

SunWuKong

07-24-2003, 07:12 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (krome @ Jul 24 2003, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, let's start off by questioning the blanket feminist premise that women are oppressed.

There are many measures for this and I can think of many instances (dating & relationships, in particular) where women often hold the power and upper hand over men. And it also varies by individual. Certainly, there have been many women who have political, financial or other forms of power over men. So before we accept this statement carte blanche - as an Azn man in 2003 I have to seriously ask - am I really the oppressor - or the oppressed? Are SOME women oppressed? Sure. But are many MEN ALSO oppressed? You betcha. [/b][/quote]
how do you define "oppressed"?

shy

07-25-2003, 12:29 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Deadpool @ Jul 24 2003, 01:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shy @ Jul 24 2003, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

one thing i have noticed lately is that SO many commercials still show the women as the domestic role. it's still mostly the women cleaning... it's still mostly the women cooking... it's still the women taking the kids grocery shopping... the only consistently progress commercial are actually anything to do with sports/athletic wear, power drinks/food, etc.

i find these sexist commercials funny. especially since i'm the one that possesses the career drive and my fiance possesses the domestic traits. he'll be taking of time for paternity leave when my maternity leave finishes. [/b][/quote]
What about those commercials that depict women emasculating and abusing men? [/b][/quote]
don't take it personally. i was merely mentioning something I'VE noticed being more of the career woman then the domestic woman. and for me... those commericals just don't appeal to me because they do not speak to me.

but can you give me an example of one that emasculates or abuses men? i just want to make sure i understand your examples.

If the roles were reversed youd have every feminist org coming down on most of the commercials on TV Hypocrisy methinks?

i wouldn't know. i'm not a feminist really. and to be honest, i never said that the commericals weren't sexist towards men as well. i was merely pointing out just ones that i have noticed lately. since we're talking about women's issues here.

OH BTW. Women are North Americas biggest consumers. So theres reasons why Commecials depict women or geared towards women.
Its marketing.

yes, i understand that. i'm in advertising and marketing. but i have a b.sc. in psychology. and therefore, i also have studied the effects of media towards both men and women... i.e. expectations of gender roles.

i also know how statistics can be used to malnipulate. especially when i see the growing population of my generation, where housework isn't one sided and is divided up equally.

shy

07-25-2003, 12:34 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (krome @ Jul 24 2003, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well, let's start off by questioning the blanket feminist premise that women are oppressed.

There are many measures for this and I can think of many instances (dating & relationships, in particular) where women often hold the power and upper hand over men. And it also varies by individual. Certainly, there have been many women who have political, financial or other forms of power over men. So before we accept this statement carte blanche - as an Azn man in 2003 I have to seriously ask - am I really the oppressor - or the oppressed? Are SOME women oppressed? Sure. But are many MEN ALSO oppressed? You betcha. [/b][/quote]
how about... there's a good chance that both men and women are oppressed... depending on their situation and perhaps oppressed in different ways.

not some women.. and MANY men. not some men... and MANY women.

just people being oppressed...

or allowing themselves to be oppressed.

the latter can sometimes be very true... and sometimes the truth hurts.

Hiroshi2

07-25-2003, 04:23 PM

Personally I think that men and women are equal, in a yin-yang sort of way, but we are not the same, and should not try to be.  We are different for a reason and have different task, but our equality comes in our ability to balance each other.

Throughout this whole discussion, this is the statement I can agree with the most. And I also agree that words like "Nazi" and "oppression" seem to be a bit strong as far as describing what is going on.

Emperor_Mike

07-25-2003, 06:18 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hiroshi2 @ Jul 25 2003, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Throughout this whole discussion, this is the statement I can agree with the most. And I also agree that words like "Nazi" and "oppression" seem to be a bit strong as far as describing what is going on. [/b][/quote]
Very well put, the both of you.

The issue of extremist feminists is a touchy one and just like extremists of every brand, sensationalism is their modus operandi (almost by default, one might imagine.) In any case, "Nazi" and "Oppression" are two words that instill many vivid images of untold suffering and *real* oppression. To juxtapose something like feminism (or "AznPryde") with phrases such as "We're being oppressed!" or "So and so is a Something-Nazi!" is simply unfair, in my opinion, to people who endured far more than your run-of-the-mill feminist or downtrodden Asian activist.

Of course, I'm one of those people who are picky when words are involved. Somehow I don't think it proper to compare a case that (overall) is insignificant with the true tragedies that the two aforementioned words are usually equated with. For me, it's almost like we're disrespecting the horrors and turmoil of the past by using these words with reckless abandon to describe "mundane" issues.

But that's just my way of thinking.

SunWuKong

07-25-2003, 08:16 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Emperor_Mike @ Jul 25 2003, 09:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> For me, it's almost like we're disrespecting the horrors and turmoil of the past by using these words with reckless abandon to describe "mundane" issues. [/b][/quote]
for me, i'm just thinking...  hey...  i don't feel "oppressed" at all.  in fact i feel pretty good about my place in American society.

AliBabaIncorporated

07-25-2003, 10:19 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Jul 25 2003, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> for me, i'm just thinking... hey... i don't feel "oppressed" at all. in fact i feel pretty good about my place in American society. [/b][/quote]
Hey come on man, what's with the case of false consciousness, there's a giant conspiracy of Asian females working with Hollywood to oppress you. They're even more dangerous than those bankers who allied with the Communists to bring down Germany back in the thirties!

Hiroshi2

07-26-2003, 02:38 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Emperor_Mike @ Jul 25 2003, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hiroshi2 @ Jul 25 2003, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Throughout this whole discussion, this is the statement I can agree with the most. And I also agree that words like "Nazi" and "oppression" seem to be a bit strong as far as describing what is going on. [/b][/quote]
Very well put, the both of you.

The issue of extremist feminists is a touchy one and just like extremists of every brand, sensationalism is their modus operandi (almost by default, one might imagine.) In any case, "Nazi" and "Oppression" are two words that instill many vivid images of untold suffering and *real* oppression. To juxtapose something like feminism (or "AznPryde") with phrases such as "We're being oppressed!" or "So and so is a Something-Nazi!" is simply unfair, in my opinion, to people who endured far more than your run-of-the-mill feminist or downtrodden Asian activist.

Of course, I'm one of those people who are picky when words are involved. Somehow I don't think it proper to compare a case that (overall) is insignificant with the true tragedies that the two aforementioned words are usually equated with. For me, it's almost like we're disrespecting the horrors and turmoil of the past by using these words with reckless abandon to describe "mundane" issues.

But that's just my way of thinking. [/b][/quote]
Yeah I agree it just seems so silly for people to get up here and talk about being "oppressed". Maybe if you were thrown in the japanese concentration camps in the '40's you can say you were oppressed, for example. But not being able to get a date is *not* oppression. It just sucks.

kasia

07-26-2003, 11:09 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hiroshi2 @ Jul 26 2003, 01:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yeah I agree it just seems so silly for people to get up here and talk about being "oppressed". Maybe if you were thrown in the japanese concentration camps in the '40's you can say you were oppressed, for example. But not being able to get a date is *not* oppression. It just sucks. [/b][/quote]
interestingly enough, that's what men used to say about women who were fighting for the right to vote.   :D   what's all this talk of oppression?  not having the right to vote is hardly equivalent to being oppressed!  silly women.

Hiroshi2

07-26-2003, 03:18 PM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kasia @ Jul 26 2003, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> interestingly enough, that's what men used to say about women who were fighting for the right to vote. :D what's all this talk of oppression? not having the right to vote is hardly equivalent to being oppressed! silly women. [/b][/quote]
That's different. You never heard that from me  :D

Emperor_Mike

07-27-2003, 11:01 AM

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kasia @ Jul 26 2003, 10:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> interestingly enough, that's what men used to say about women who were fighting for the right to vote. :D what's all this talk of oppression? not having the right to vote is hardly equivalent to being oppressed! silly women. [/b][/quote]
Not giving women the right to vote does qualify as oppression to a certain degree (though obviously certainly not in a concentration camp type manner.) The prerogative to cast ballots in order to decide on issues that may affect the lives of women in society is an important right that may result in hardships for those concerned if the task is not allowed. Using the "O" word in this case is justifiable since a basic freedom with the ability to affect an individual's livelihood is being denied.