INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Adam on August 01, 2013, 10:18:45 AM
-
There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately :M
So, go on, Les
I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.
Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.
Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right
Please come up with a better argument
Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 words. Cheers.
-
There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately :M
So, go on, Les
I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.
Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.
Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right
Please come up with a better argument
Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 pages. Cheers.
Fixed.
-
Adam :hahaha:
You are silly Adam. Is this how you think it plays out. You open a thread and try to give me terms about what and how to answer?
Oh yes I will be happy to take on this call out.
-
There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately :M
So, go on, Les
I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.
Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.
Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right
Please come up with a better argument
Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 words. Cheers.
Of course you do not "see" it because you don't "see it". Oh fuck, you are going to be a hard ask to break through your stupidity and when I do I don't think I will have much to work with. But fuck it, kids are both asleep and will write this first piece and then watch some gratuitous violence. You know, something that gets your testosterone pumped....oh right, sorry.
This requires a bit of critical thinking on your part. Cavemen had good senses of smells and relied on smell and hearing possibly a lot more than we did. Now, Cavemen did not have showers (I know, this is getting harder and harder for someone, so removed from such things, to contemplate). So if some horny 14 year old hairy, smelly, probably parasite infested, rotten toothed (and so on) male Caveman was keen on some equally smelly and repulsive female, why did they NOT say oh fuck this, I can barely tolerate my own stench, I don't want to bump uglies with that horrible thing.
See you may say now "Oh I would not. Fuck that, that gross fucking thing would not come anywhere near me and visa versa." You are too far removed, the fact that most did, though they were ignorant and non-educated, they were not stupid. So the belonging to a social setting requires a different way of thinking things to what you do now.
But see it does not stop there. Men and women have primal urges to have sex. Now whilst the act of sex may have been pleasurable, the birth thing wasn't and killed many. Infant mortality was high. Life expectancy for mothers was not great and life expectancy general was probably around I dunno, 25? On average? There is good evidence that the men after having sex with these hideous women things did NOT dump them and actually looked after their women.
Men stayed and looked after their family. Men would go out on hunting expeditions over dangerous territories, exposing themselves to opposing tribes, predators, injury and often death. Whilst the women stayed home.
Now.....the women stayed home. Safe. Secure. Warm. With good company.
Who the fuck would think that was a good idea? The man or the woman?
In context, he a number of years ago had sex with the horrible thing. She had two kids. He now has to risk his life to get food for him AND her and the kids. She stays home. Why does she not get her own food? Why doesn't she and the other fit women go hunting too?
No there is something there greater than "Males have penises so they are sexist". There was a social obligation on the man to look after and protect his wife and the kids. A social and a moral obligation. The women, what was their social obligation to him? What were her duties as she waved him off for perhaps the last time when he when out to hunt?
I don't know. I was not there. I would imagine that it may have been something like. You get sex and more say than me and I stay warm and safe.
I think that was the trade-off.
That is not sexist. Were there sexists Cavemen? Undoubtedly. Both genders no doubt but this division of duty and the social constructs around it not inherently sexist. Different is not sexist neither is treating people of different genders sexist. In the same way as the lack of urinals in the ladies toilets is both a reflection of difference of genders and treating one gender differently than the other, without being sexist.
It was not sexist to send the man off to risk life and limb and it was not sexist to trade that off against more say in the tribe.
I would say it was necessary for that day and time in exactly the same way as it ISN'T now. Just does not mean it was sexist then
So why is all of this important? Why does it have any bearing on the the subject? Well it points to probable starting points. I will follow through on this path to our great grand parents time to here and introduce the reason why society has change since introduction of welfare and lower mother/child death in childbirth and such.
It will no doubt go completely over your head Adam. In fact the only reason I have decided to start with such a long post is because you demanded 100 words or less.......did you honestly think that was going to happen? No I fully expect a TLDR and you already stating you refuse to entertain a callout of your own making because I will not pay by your rules.
(http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8181/8045524891_d6430f349b_m.jpg)
How is that turtle of yours lately. Haven't heard anything of it. Still alive and well? How long do those things live if not killed off maliciously and painfully by predators? Longer than that dog and cat of yours? Just curious
-
Now from the rather mutually agreed on and mutually beneficial social contracts and constructs we evolved. This was just the framework.
Men and women slowly evolved. Men for their part showed the physical changes bought about by their efforts in being the protectors, by having more muscle mass and denser bones and by becoming on average taller and stronger than their female counterparts.
But throughout the preceding history things remained fairly stunted in meaningful change from what is now thought of (charitably perhaps) as traditional roles in the marriage.
The duties to the woman were still there. If they had evolved to a point they did not have to hunt for food or risk their life in a long expedition, there was always another war, or a duel over a lady's honour or the like. He also had to provide for his family.
The duties to the man? Well yes there was the marriage vows and the social agreement to stay at home whilst the husband provided.
They looked after each other, in different ways.
The marriage vow? The wife honouring the husband's efforts in providing and looking after her for life and looking after her children? I think so.
I think it was a nice way of saying "OK you poor bastard. If you bust your arse defending us, protecting and providing for me and the kids, I will (like the Cavewomen did) trade this off for obeying you. Allow you to call the shots and take the responsibility for the public affairs and stresses."
I think it was probably not only workable but necessary.
Why?
Because whilst society had advanced in leaps and bounds, infant mortality and mothers dying early from childbirth had not come ahead in leaps and bounds.
Slowly this too changed. Women finally were at a stage that there was not a better than great chance they would die early and their kids mostly would. They got to a stage historically comparatively recently where women could hope for longer lives and less of their lives trying for another and another child in hope that enough would survive to give them grandchildren.
Healthier, less prone to death in childbirth and with more time to dedicate to other things other than raising families, women have gone into the areas that were male dominated. Male tasks of which men were duty bound to perform.
We now live in a different time. The social constructs which recognised the need for men and women at that time to do different roles and oblige themselves in different ways was neither bad nor sexist. It was just a necessary future in the society.
It is not now. The obligations bit in the marriage. It is a relic of a time gone by. Does it matter? Probably not. It simply is not relevant.I do not think it is sexist, just outdated. Like being shown a tool holder for a tool no longer used or produced and asked if its useful. It was or may have been but is not now.
The possession thing....yeah. I think that really t is expressing possession of the wife in terms of duty. The man was bound to the wife and her children by duty. He was obliged to keep them safe and honoured and provided for. He was theirs in this respect. They were his. They obeyed and he took care of their needs. I think "possession" was a way of describing the having something in your possession. Another man could not attempt to steal another man's wife or attack the children. It would be seen as a righteous retaliation. A right that these components of the family were afforded a right to be looked after and provided for by the husband. By calling the wife and children possessions, they were afforded recognition to the man's duties to protect them.
Now people could make the argument that this kind of treatment would be sexist now. OK sure, whatever, but that is not the argument.
.People could say that the way in society and law sought to afford this right of protection could have been done a different way, maybe it could have or maybe it could not have
A better point would be....OK so what IF the man "supposed" to be looking after his family, doesn't? Well this is where it all goes South really quick. The system was not really designed based on the fact that women would not trade off sex and more power for safety and being provided for and not designed for the man not giving women support and protection. Same applies if the women did not do their obligation. Similar results.
A lot of the bad aspects of such a system are easily evidenced. It does not make men then sexist or women sexist. People are people and always will be. Mostly good. Mostly loving their families and mostly seeing to look after each other and live life. Always going to be a percentage of arseholes in any community
(http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i240/nebulagirl/germs.gif)
-
WTF
I have to read all that? Jesus Christ. Guess I kinda asked for this though, so I'll try and book some time off in my diary so I have plenty of time to read your latest rambling bollocks.
(I'll read it when I've had my dinner)
-
You know, something that gets your testosterone pumped....oh right, sorry.
Haha, how pathetic. You realise the testosterone levels of trans guys are the same as the average non-trans guy, right? Not sure what you're trying to do there - and, trust me, you're probably the last person to get my testosterone pumping ;)
showers (I know, this is getting harder and harder for someone, so removed from such things, to contemplate).
Lol, so the best you can do is to start with the trans stuff and then to go on to my OCD? :laugh:
Haha! My OCD was sorted in 2011 and I'm fine now. Sure, I have a shower every day like any normal person - don't you?
Please... cut the lame trans/ocd digs and actually get down to making an argument, if you're capable of that.
[some weird attempt at explaining the history of "cavemen"]
What was that? "Cavemen"? Please. I don't need you to educate me on the evolution of humanity or early civilisation. I go to books for that kind of thing - not some middle aged bloke on the internet with a stick up his arse and a severe lack of intellect.
No there is something there greater than "Males have penises so they are sexist".
Who actually says that here? Sexism can go both ways, yes. And I am strongly against sexism in any and all forms (whether directed at men or women).
Were there sexists Cavemen? Undoubtedly.
Are you high?
Where has this Flintstones stuff come from?
The callout was started after discussions about sexism in present-day Iraq and sexism in marriage prior to changes in the law.
Different is not sexist neither is treating people of different genders sexist.
I don't think that sentence means what you think it means. In fact, I don't think it means anything.
Did you mean to say, "neither is treating people of different genders differently is not sexist"?
I will follow through on this path to our great grand parents time to here and introduce the reason why society has change since introduction of welfare and lower mother/child death in childbirth and such.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Les, you make it sound like you're writing for a peer-reviewed evolutionary biology / anthropology journal.
Get to the fucking point.
Oh and, along with the trans stuff and the OCD stuff, that "turtle" (did you mean my tortoise?) stuff is really so 2010, Les ;)
-
as traditional roles in the marriage.
Finally!
The possession thing....yeah. I think that really t is expressing possession of the wife in terms of duty. The man was bound to the wife and her children by duty. He was obliged to keep them safe and honoured and provided for. He was theirs in this respect. They were his.
No. The wife belonged to the husband. Not vice versa.
some more poorly-written amateur rubbish
That's disappointing. I thought when you mentioned "traditional marriage" you were finally getting on to the actually point of the callout. Clearly not.
I don't need you to explain to me WHY marriage began as it did. I'm asking you to explain to me why it's not sexist for women to be owned by men. Either before the mid twentieth century in most Western countries, or today in places like Iraq.
You haven't even touched upon that.
If you'll look at my initial post, I was asking you to justify your view that Iraqi women (as well as women in other countries) being treated as inferior to men is NOT sexist.
You say that it's perfectly ok because it's to protect the women, but is that for their own good, or simply for the good of their husbands/fathers/brothers? It's not to protect the women for their own sake that they are kept inside and under complete control. It's to protect them as a commodity. It's their fathers and husbands protecting THEIR posession (their daughters, wives, sisters).
I would protect my wife or daughter, yes. But I would protect her as an individual person with her own rights and her own life. I would not protect her in the way that I would "protect" my slave (my property). Yet that is what's happening in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia.
You make out it's all good for the women as they're being kept safe etc. No. It's not being done to keep them from harm for their sake. It's being done in the same way that you lock the doors of your car when you leave it. The way you don't leave your expensive phone on the bar when you go to take a piss.
They're being "protected" as a POSSESSION. As property. Not as people. And despite my efforts to drum it into you here, you don't seem to grasp that.
Now, can we finally leave off the lame 2010 insults and the amateur rambles on "cavemen" and get to the actual point of the callout.
How is it not sexist to view women as property?
You haven't even ONCE addressed women in present-day [Iraq]. Which is strange, given that this is where the whole thing stated from
-
Leave out lame insults?
Didn't this whole callout start shortly after you posted this?
No wonder your wife divorced you :laugh:
I mean, you did post this right? Nothing comes ot of a vacuum. Ill advised? Perhaps, but then if you think the little jibes ae throwing your way are unwarranted and unnecessary, I think no less than taking such potshots at me, but you can bet I will respond in kind about 100%.
Unlike you I don't go making a deal about it. I see it and I say "Oh right, back to this. Disappointing but ok"
So you want to stop? OK. Probably better to not start. My kids are also out of bounds in case you are wondering.
-
How are your kids the same as your divorce?
I'm not gonna insult anyone's kids. A divorce is pretty different though.
Personally, I think someone's gender and previous mental illness are different too actually, much as I'd find a racist or homophobic insult kinda different to attacking someone's failed relationships.
I couldn't care less what you post about my being trans elsewhere though, but I'd at least have expected you to actually get down toa proper argument in the CALLOUT though.
btw, I wasn't the first person to bring up your divorce once you started this weird sexism thing. At least it's technically related to the issue :zoinks:
But yes, you seem to be misunderstanding me here - I don't particularly care about your lame trans/ocd insults themselves. But I'd have thought that, if you actually had anything to back up your argument, you'd have got down to that in the callout. Not pointless little insults.
-
Also, if you were "responding in kind", a better one would have been to insult my past BEHAVIOUR etc.
Not who/what I am.
Person A: "you're being pretty sexist here. no wonder your marriage didn't last"
Person B: "yeah well you're a nigger lol!"
Not really the same ;)
But then this is a separate issue, perhaps for a separate thread
-
Also, if you were "responding in kind", a better one would have been to insult my past BEHAVIOUR etc.
Not who/what I am.
Person A: "you're being pretty sexist here. no wonder your marriage didn't last"
Person B: "yeah well you're a nigger lol!"
Not really the same ;)
But then this is a separate issue, perhaps for a separate thread
Nope that is just your idea on things. I see things very differently. I think that if you go there you are basically going back to 2010 when you and bit thought they would get a few lowblows in.
Basically non-substantiated talking shit about someone because you think you can. Now you can say if you like, "Well I did say that but it was different to you saying shit about me because "I" do not think it as of as much value and my doing this ought not mean that you should respond in kind and not in the callout if you do" But you know adam, it sounds like a more accommodating position for you tan me. I say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Call me sexist if you like.
-
Now I will respond further to the claims I have made and that you have responded to a bit later but just not now. 6 more hours if you can bear hanging out that long. I was just checking in. I will be taking kids out to laser tag or bowling. I guess that answers one of your queries, doesn't it?
No idea why Adam is posting in the Peanut GAllery. I have only just started. Settling in. I think it may be wishful thinking on his part.
-
Nope that is just your idea on things. I see things very differently. I think that if you go there you are basically going back to 2010 when you and bit thought they would get a few lowblows in.
Basically non-substantiated talking shit about someone because you think you can. Now you can say if you like, "Well I did say that but it was different to you saying shit about me because "I" do not think it as of as much value and my doing this ought not mean that you should respond in kind and not in the callout if you do" But you know adam, it sounds like a more accommodating position for you tan me. I say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Call me sexist if you like.
Wrong. That's not what I said. It's not about value. You attacking me on something I've done in the past, regardless of how much that might mean to me, would be the same as me taking the piss out of your divorce.
You attacking me for being trans is different, in the same way as it would be different to attack someone for being black, being female, being disabled or being gay.
For the record, I'm not saying you shouldn't take the piss out of me being trans. Feel free - it doesn't make a difference to me. It is definitely not the same as taking the piss out of something someone's done though, however much that might bother them.
The OCD insults... hmm... perhaps you are right about them being similar. Although I'm still not so sure about that.
But I still say it would have been easier for you to justify it that way if your insult had been about something I'd done in my past etc, rather than my being trans.
If you want to continue this , I think it'd be better in a different thread though. Would much rather this callout actually be about the topic it was started for.
-
It will be too Adam. I have only time to look in whilst my boy is dragging his feet getting ready to go out. I will respond to the callout but not in 100 word sound bytes.
As to me not replying in ways you consider similar or relevant, No Adam, I know this comes as a shock and you think it perfectly reasonable for you to think I need to respond in ways that insult about things that are classified as similar to what...
No. Insult me over things I think are not "on the table for discussions" and I will start lowballing too. I don't really care if you think it relevant or similar or worthy. Do not give a shit. The fact you made a song and dance and wanted to callout over is great.
Going down this path lead to a situation that your partner in crime ended up wishing heart attack on me and accusing me of pedophilia. Something she could not walk away from and something you found a hard to slinking away from whilst saying "OK I WAS encouraging her and supporting hrer and acting like a dick, but I can't support this and please don't associate her actions with mine" and then left her holding the baby.
Yes very 2010, better not start with that kind of shi or play innocent when you do. It comes off as dishonest and slimy.
.....and he is ready and I've gotta go.
Will post more tonight about 9 my time when kids in bed.
-
I'm gonna reply to that elsewhere so we can actually get on with the callout
-
There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately :M
So, go on, Les
I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.
Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.
Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right
Please come up with a better argument
Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 words. Cheers.
Now let's be clear that men and women having different roles in a society is not sexist or oppressive. It by no means says that it is not sexist BUT the claim has to have some basis other than "Men have penises, so they are sexist".
So how to assess what is and is not sexist is both a matter of opinion and logical sense. In most instances, logic should win the day. When a ideology has been promoted and pushed over half a century, there are probably going to be many assumptions and presumptions about the things that we then base our "knowledge" on things and the framing or filter we see them through.
One aspect is the men did not give women the choice and took away those options for women. I think this is extremely simplistic. It lends itself to the even sillier opinion of "Yes men may have made themselves the protectors and ones of risk of harm wherever possible BUT they were doing this in a sexist way and taking away women's want to go hunting and warring and did it because they liked to die disposabily"
It does not make sense. It does not make sense that a gender would oppress another gender and risk their lives so haphazardly for the other gender whilst not expecting anything from the other gender.
They COULD have raped the women, stolen and raised any kids that they may have wanted to be Father to, IF she survived and left her to fend for herself and put themselves through a lot less risk.
No it was a social contract with two parties. The women wanted to be safe and protected. The women did not want to hunt. The women did not want to war. They saw the advantage in staying safe and warm and secure. Let the men do that and in return they were happy to trade-off their safety for more power in the relationship. Effectively being a prized possession.
In terms of identity too it made sense. She would be safe from unwanted advances by attaching a possession narrative to her identity. She would also not need to take responsibility for any problem that may occur as they become her husband's problems to fix or make restitution for. (In a similar way to a parent paying or fixing results of problems they cause).
So Yes she WAS a little in many ways with the power of the child BUT also when her Father handed over his daughter, he was essentially saying to the husband "OK mate, I have tried my very best to look after her and keep her as safe and protected from the world as I can. Could you please try to do the same." So.....that is sexist! Yes, yes those men colluded and sort to keep the girls ignorant and as children and that was sexist, right?
Wrong. There was no abortion, birth control and lousy infant mortality rates and so parents by and large tried to have a lot of kids and keep having them. More kids virtually guaranteed a few would survive to childhood and in a parents old age, they would have someone to look after them. It also meant that they would have someone to live to child bearing age. This was not sexist. Female girls would be lucky enough to survive childhood with diseases we now designate as third world claiming many. Further to this though, they would generally marry and generally have children. The chances of them surviving multiple childbirths and to menopause, wasn't great. IF they did survive that long, they would on average not have a long window to the end of their lives. They would have to hope that their husband had saved and provided enough to sustain them. IF such a situation existed and the women's risk to life was so severe, then men keeping them safe and cosseted made good sense as did racing around and working for them and protecting and providing for them. But it would also make sense that SHE would see the sense in saying "My body clock is ticking I want to be a Mother, notwithstanding the fact it may kill me at any time I give birth, I can not be relied on to provide for these kids. I can not assume positions in society that my be compromised by me dying prematurely and chances are I will be giving birth within one year of marrying. A birth which is a good chance to kill me. Please take on that role. Look after the finances. Be the face of our family. Look after my interests and our kid's interests." That is not sexist for her to want this nor he.
Now with this mindset and this society, would it be possible for such a obligation on the part of the woman to be that she wil obey her husband" Looking at it from modern day mindset will not work. But from such a society and desperate times, it does make sense. It was a time that pretty much everyone could talk about a dead child. Either a son or a daughter or a brother or a sister, because every family and every person was affected. It was not the shocking news story and look for answers it is today. Back them it was ingrained in the psyche.
Why were the man's obligations to women not noted in such church services? I think. Again it is conjecture, but I am reasonably sure that in the same way men did not just bail on their women, that it was simply understood.
See in looking at these things I take an approach of looking at the big picture and taking the opinion that people on average are generally average people. Sounds self-evident. I think that taking the approach that men did X in society because they are sexist is simplistic. Who was sexist? Which individuals. It begs the answer of "all". Like the possession thing. Was that for men to marry a woman to have a fucktoy? Is that the kind of impression you may get with the word possession? A woman to continually rape and beat for pleasure and keep imprisoned in the house? You know, I am sure that some men did exactly that. I do not doubt it BUT I do not thing for a moment that is why it was made or its purpose or the way men or women viewed the arrangement. That is because I am not fucking stupid.
It was a social environment different to what we know or perceive BUT what we do know is that generally parents love each other and their kids and seek to do the best for them. Adults of both sexes generally will seeking out companionship and love and sex and want to have kids and raise them best they can. These are givens. Yet it is very easy for people to point to different times in history and different cultures and cry sexism.
Sexism - like racism, ageism, or whatever bigotry you want to cast, is not a positive thing or a way of life. To say, ok it was sexist and what I mean to say is different, is not cool. Sexism is sexism and different roles in society MAY mean sexist or may mean other things as well. A company IT may be called sexist because it employs a smaller number of women BUT women tend not to choose hard science or hard Math or IT positions in the workplace. In these areas, the male to female ratio is high. It is a difference but it is not sexist.
But there is another point too. Extreme and crazy practices by religious fundamentalists which make crazy religious laws, many which are especially now, sexist and cruel. Now I will not contest that some practices and preaching are anything short of.....crazy. It is however something to note that when talking about men and women in a country or of a culture and saying "they believe in this or they are like that", that you are not actually saying "the worst of their religious crackpots believe that". Not a fan of Christianity BUT I will concede that mostly they are simply people who believe in God and Jesus and probably an appreciation of some of the aspects of religious teachings.
The Mullahs, Taliban, Tribal Warlords, Westboro Baptists and so on are examples of such racalised fundamentalists wackos. I do not for a moment define all Americans or all American Christians by these wackos. It would be dishonest in the extreme......as it is when people try defining the people of Iraq, Iran, Egypt or Afganistan on the basis of the teachings of the most crazy fundamentalists. Really dishonest.
By all means call some of the worst practices crazy, stupid and sexist and you will not get me disagreeing. Say that a people are sexist then unless you are talking specifically about the crazy fundamentalists themselves then I am happy to call bullshit.
-
I think I was a little over 100 words. :lol1:
-
OK it is getting late. I will be going to bed soon. My going to bed doesn't mean I consider the callout over. If I do not post for many hours tomorrow, that too doesn't mean that it is over. I am going shopping with my kids and visiting friend and having dinner at friends. Then packing lunch for kids for school on Monday.
Just to let you know Adam, in case you jump too quickly to silly conclusions. Furthermore IF I do post tomorrow morning, I will likely be pressed for time and possibly will not be able to answer much. This does not mean I have given up either. It simply means that it is my weekend and I am busy.
See how silly some of your assumptions are and how unnecessary this is to explain?
-
the claim has to have some basis other than "Men have penises, so they are sexist".
I find this peculiar. Where abouts in my previous posts have I even implied that I think "men have penises, so they are sexist"?
Really, Les, this is kind of stupid even for you. Surely I would be the last person to say that. I am a man myself. (I'm setting you up there for another one of your hilarious jokes btw... go on, take it! ;) )
They COULD have raped the women, stolen and raised any kids that they may have wanted to be Father to, IF she survived and left her to fend for herself and put themselves through a lot less risk.
Given how much you seemed to think you knew about earlier human societies and relationships, I'm surprised you say such a thing. You clearly don't know much evolutionary biology. There is a reason why are species generally raise their offspring as a couple. Sure, take any opportunities to impregnate other females when and if you can, but in order to ensure you have a good chance of passing on your genes for another two generations, you need to stick around.
Also, the scenario you just described DID happen a lot. In the kind of environment you seem to have conjured up, if one tribe attacks another tribe, the men will likely be wiped out/driven out, the women raped and the existing kids killed or enslaved.
So yes, a man could just rape his women and leave them to fend for themselves, but that wouldn't really make good evolutionary sense. It's not this big self-sacrifice. It's what's right for THEM too if they want to make sure their kids reach an age where they can go on and reproduce themselves.
Hang on, where are we even going with this? Why the "cavemen" talk again? HOW human society got to be sexist is not what this callout is about. I'd rather read a book on this topic than discuss it with you of all people
No it was a social contract with two parties. The women wanted to be safe and protected. The women did not want to hunt. The women did not want to war.
Jesus Christ. Hunting again? We're not talking about prehistoric huntergatherers. We're talking about relatively modern legal marriage and present-day Iraq etc. To say, "women aren't allowed out on their own in Saudi Arabia because Mrs Flintstone wanted to stay home while Mr Flintstone went out hunting" is just fucking stupid. Irrelevant. That somehow makes it ok to ban women from driving or only let them leave their house with a male escort?
They saw the advantage in staying safe and warm and secure. Let the men do that and in return they were happy to trade-off their safety for more power in the relationship. Effectively being a prized possession.
Can we PLEASE, for the love of god, travel through time away from this cavemen shit?
I think many Iraqi women would take issue with you saying they WANT to be locked in their house.
We're going round in circles here.
There was no abortion,
Hmm. When are we talking about here? Maybe no legal abortion or birth control, but I think you'll find there was some.
birth control and lousy infant mortality rates and so parents by and large tried to have a lot of kids and keep having them.
Yes. Correct.
I think that taking the approach that men did X in society because they are sexist is simplistic. Who was sexist? Which individuals. It begs the answer of "all".
It is the society itself, the culture, the laws etc etc that is sexist. Until recently, rape within marriage was not legally recognised. etc etc. The further back you go, the less rights the women will have. If a woman doesn't even have a SAY in whether or not she wants to marry her "suitor", I don't see how that can be anything other than sexist.
Like the possession thing. Was that for men to marry a woman to have a fucktoy? Is that the kind of impression you may get with the word possession? A woman to continually rape and beat for pleasure and keep imprisoned in the house? You know, I am sure that some men did exactly that. I do not doubt it BUT I do not thing for a moment that is why it was made or its purpose or the way men or women viewed the arrangement. That is because I am not fucking stupid.
Um, by "possession", I mean exactly that. Possession. Husband owns wife. Simple as. I'm sure their sex life varied and isn't really of any interest
Yet it is very easy for people to point to different times in history and different cultures and cry sexism.
That's because, throughout history, women generally HAVE been viewed as inferior to men. That's just fucking obvious lol. Just like pointing to racism in 19th century scientific books. Yeah, it was a different time. Yeah, I'm sure they didn't realise just how bigoted they were being. Yeah, they had their reasons for thinking like that. But it was STILL RACISM.
A company IT may be called sexist because it employs a smaller number of women BUT women tend not to choose hard science or hard Math or IT positions in the workplace. In these areas, the male to female ratio is high. It is a difference but it is not sexist.
Bad comparison. Women CAN at least study computing, apply for a job at an IT company etc etc. Clearly that is, as you said, simply a difference in the number of women wanting to go into IT. Not the same as a woman not being ABLE to get a job in computing.
when people try defining the people of Iraq, Iran, Egypt or Afganistan on the basis of the teachings of the most crazy fundamentalists. Really dishonest.
Lol you don't get it, do you? We're talking about sexism in Iran, Iraq etc because it is LEGALLY ENFORCED.
For example, the WBC homophobia is not legally enforced in the US. Gays aren't killed for being gay. In Iran they are. If I was to judge America based on the WBC, that would be silly. To judge Iran as homophobic (AS A COUNTRY, ie legally, politically) is perfectly sane though - they execute them.
No one's judging all Iranians or Iraqis based on what an extreme religious minorty say. We're talking about sexism that is actually legally enforced.
Say that a people are sexist then unless you are talking specifically about the crazy fundamentalists themselves then I am happy to call bullshit.
We're saying the country itself is sexist. Its regime or whatever. Not necessarily every member of the population.
Apologies to anyone reading this. I don't have the energy to put this into words properly, so I'll admit it is likely very rambling.
-
OK it is getting late. I will be going to bed soon. My going to bed doesn't mean I consider the callout over. If I do not post for many hours tomorrow, that too doesn't mean that it is over. I am going shopping with my kids and visiting friend and having dinner at friends. Then packing lunch for kids for school on Monday.
Just to let you know Adam, in case you jump too quickly to silly conclusions. Furthermore IF I do post tomorrow morning, I will likely be pressed for time and possibly will not be able to answer much. This does not mean I have given up either. It simply means that it is my weekend and I am busy.
See how silly some of your assumptions are and how unnecessary this is to explain?
Lol, I never said I assumed you'd given up because you hadn''t been on for a few hours.
I said I assumed you'd given up because you came in, replied only to one little bit that wasn't even related to the callout, then left and started posting elsewhere.
My fault though - I should have realised that it clearly takes you several hours to make each response.
-
the claim has to have some basis other than "Men have penises, so they are sexist".
I find this peculiar. Where abouts in my previous posts have I even implied that I think "men have penises, so they are sexist"?
Really, Les, this is kind of stupid even for you. Surely I would be the last person to say that. I am a man myself. (I'm setting you up there for another one of your hilarious jokes btw... go on, take it! ;) )
It is meant to be stupid. It seems often a default. When unsure, blame men. Men are quite happy to set up a culture that places them in much more danger than the women they married and who they are supposed to be oppressing and that makes it a life's purpose to provide and protect. Doesn't make a lot of sense. I think rather than really consider things, people quite often just call sexist.
They COULD have raped the women, stolen and raised any kids that they may have wanted to be Father to, IF she survived and left her to fend for herself and put themselves through a lot less risk.
Given how much you seemed to think you knew about earlier human societies and relationships, I'm surprised you say such a thing. You clearly don't know much evolutionary biology. There is a reason why are species generally raise their offspring as a couple. Sure, take any opportunities to impregnate other females when and if you can, but in order to ensure you have a good chance of passing on your genes for another two generations, you need to stick around.
Also, the scenario you just described DID happen a lot. In the kind of environment you seem to have conjured up, if one tribe attacks another tribe, the men will likely be wiped out/driven out, the women raped and the existing kids killed or enslaved.
So yes, a man could just rape his women and leave them to fend for themselves, but that wouldn't really make good evolutionary sense. It's not this big self-sacrifice. It's what's right for THEM too if they want to make sure their kids reach an age where they can go on and reproduce themselves.
Hang on, where are we even going with this? Why the "cavemen" talk again? HOW human society got to be sexist is not what this callout is about. I'd rather read a book on this topic than discuss it with you of all people
Then do, by all means.But then you did the callout. Now you are stuck with me. It was quite your own fault.
Now obviously hunting was replaced in most societies to other employment but the roles remained unchanged. Making money to get food rather than go out and kill for it. If you see hunt, you can replace it with get work.
As to what species do. No I am talking about humans. Species don't drive cars, worship gods or land on the moon. We are talking about Humans. So rather than see this in terms of some biological drive which overrides any thought, you will have to do a little better. It is a simplistic cop out. Men then, like men now, most likely loved their kids and probably more than fancied their wife.
Some men would have been a little more barbaric. There may have been different politics and customs and social dynamics.
Women did not have long life expectancies. This has only started improving dramatically in relatively recent years in respect to recorded history. Men protected the Mothers of their children because both they and the children were valued. They could "afford to" throw themselves on an opposing tribe but they could not risk exposing such harms to the women or kids.
No it was a social contract with two parties. The women wanted to be safe and protected. The women did not want to hunt. The women did not want to war.
Jesus Christ. Hunting again? We're not talking about prehistoric huntergatherers. We're talking about relatively modern legal marriage and present-day Iraq etc. To say, "women aren't allowed out on their own in Saudi Arabia because Mrs Flintstone wanted to stay home while Mr Flintstone went out hunting" is just fucking stupid. Irrelevant. That somehow makes it ok to ban women from driving or only let them leave their house with a male escort?
Everything has its origin. However their are more than one of those forces here.
If I told you that many of the old women in Iraq have an education and many were working for much of their adult life, what would you say? What if I said that most of the younger women do not? Would that suggest to you some big change in society? If I told you that the Iraq of the past was a very progressive place and very much advanced, would you deny that? Why then is it stymied now? But here is the big one. If it is going backwards in becoming this restrictive culture then is that likely that the reason for it is something along the lines of, that is because the people of and in Iraq agree it is best OR a small but controlling population within Iraq is trying to dominate the country with laws and impose a culture that oppresses all of them and that they do not want or need"?
Think about it.
They saw the advantage in staying safe and warm and secure. Let the men do that and in return they were happy to trade-off their safety for more power in the relationship. Effectively being a prized possession.
Can we PLEASE, for the love of god, travel through time away from this cavemen shit?
I think many Iraqi women would take issue with you saying they WANT to be locked in their house.
We're going round in circles here.
Sorry was the question whether I think that Iraqui women wish they could go outside and risk being blown away or badly assaulted daily OR stay home and not be? Is this like, an honest question? Because I COULD say no, they really want to risk getting killed and the ones that have no choice but to go out normally rejoice in freedom that they have to do so. Something like that?
There was no abortion,
Hmm. When are we talking about here? Maybe no legal abortion or birth control, but I think you'll find there was some.
Around the time of the creation of the Vows that you object to , I dare say there was not much on offer. Look I am more than aware that animal intestines were used as a makeshift condoms way back in the day but they were not proper widely distributed stocked on supermarket mostly reliable condoms or pharmacy mass produced birth control pills.
Some, does not say a lot.
As for abortion back then? I don't think I even need to go there do I?
birth control and lousy infant mortality rates and so parents by and large tried to have a lot of kids and keep having them.
Yes. Correct.
I know
I think that taking the approach that men did X in society because they are sexist is simplistic. Who was sexist? Which individuals. It begs the answer of "all".
It is the society itself, the culture, the laws etc etc that is sexist. Until recently, rape within marriage was not legally recognised. etc etc. The further back you go, the less rights the women will have. If a woman doesn't even have a SAY in whether or not she wants to marry her "suitor", I don't see how that can be anything other than sexist.
Society forces its will on its citizens and obliges them.
You know why they gave 18 year old men the right to vote and allowed them to be recognised as men? Because they were obliged to be drafted and not allowed to vote. Objectioning "draft-dodgers" were jailed on the basis that they were obliged to look after the country and go to war. (Women got the vote too. Society does not oblige them to war. Women were a good source of getting young 18 year old boys to go to war. They would hand out white feathers to shame boys to conscripting). But I am getting sidetracked. None of this was sexist. It was about defined social obligations in return for a set of treatments.
As for whether a woman not choosing her suitor, remember the bit about the Father having to make decisions for the daughter when she is a child and the husband take responsibility for the girl when he marries her? This was part of that. She basically was allowing Father carte blanche and then the Father says, "OK so you are no longer a child. You are marriageable age. Your life with me is over. I have assessed given all the best aspects of our station and what I could possibly hope in respect of what man may look after you like I have. I have had some enquiries by rather nervous men and of them all Mr X is best bet to be able to provide and look after you."
In the same way that society obligated the man to be the breadwinner and the man in charge of everything (HE had no choice) and be the one to protect (No choice there either)She too had obligations to allow the man this power in return for her comfort and safety (She had no choice)
Were both obligations sexist?
Like the possession thing. Was that for men to marry a woman to have a fucktoy? Is that the kind of impression you may get with the word possession? A woman to continually rape and beat for pleasure and keep imprisoned in the house? You know, I am sure that some men did exactly that. I do not doubt it BUT I do not thing for a moment that is why it was made or its purpose or the way men or women viewed the arrangement. That is because I am not fucking stupid.
Um, by "possession", I mean exactly that. Possession. Husband owns wife. Simple as. I'm sure their sex life varied and isn't really of any interest
Possession is way of identifying in the context of the marriage contract. X is Y's wife. It is to say X is obliged to look after Y. X is responsible for Y's social actions. If you try to hurt or both Y then you will need to answer to X.
But in as to why a woman may WANT this status or situation?
More kids virtually guaranteed a few would survive to childhood and in a parents old age, they would have someone to look after them. It also meant that they would have someone to live to child bearing age. This was not sexist. Female girls would be lucky enough to survive childhood with diseases we now designate as third world claiming many. Further to this though, they would generally marry and generally have children. The chances of them surviving multiple childbirths and to menopause, wasn't great. IF they did survive that long, they would on average not have a long window to the end of their lives. They would have to hope that their husband had saved and provided enough to sustain them. IF such a situation existed and the women's risk to life was so severe, then men keeping them safe and cosseted made good sense as did racing around and working for them and protecting and providing for them. But it would also make sense that SHE would see the sense in saying "My body clock is ticking I want to be a Mother, notwithstanding the fact it may kill me at any time I give birth, I can not be relied on to provide for these kids. I can not assume positions in society that my be compromised by me dying prematurely and chances are I will be giving birth within one year of marrying. A birth which is a good chance to kill me. Please take on that role. Look after the finances. Be the face of our family. Look after my interests and our kid's interests." That is not sexist for her to want this nor he.
Now if we consider this and its implications, that is why it may well not be sexist then but would be today in our society.
Yet it is very easy for people to point to different times in history and different cultures and cry sexism.
That's because, throughout history, women generally HAVE been viewed as inferior to men. That's just fucking obvious lol. Just like pointing to racism in 19th century scientific books. Yeah, it was a different time. Yeah, I'm sure they didn't realise just how bigoted they were being. Yeah, they had their reasons for thinking like that. But it was STILL RACISM.
Why did men let the women considered inferior to them on the lifeboats whilst they took an uncomfortable dip in the Ocean? I mean they DID consider them inferior beings right? Surely they would be hurling them overboard in order to get to the lifeboats themselves?
No? Maybe this is the bit where you are supposed to say "The Patriarchy hurts men too". No?
You want more examples of why your concept just went the way of the Titanic?
As for trying to introduce racism. Yup great analogy. Now just tell class how the White master worked the fields hard all day whilst his black slave stayed at home looking after his children, or how he defended his black slave from any violence or threats and when you consider all these kind of angles please get back to me and tell me how horribly ill thought out your analogy is.
A company IT may be called sexist because it employs a smaller number of women BUT women tend not to choose hard science or hard Math or IT positions in the workplace. In these areas, the male to female ratio is high. It is a difference but it is not sexist.
Bad comparison. Women CAN at least study computing, apply for a job at an IT company etc etc. Clearly that is, as you said, simply a difference in the number of women wanting to go into IT. Not the same as a woman not being ABLE to get a job in computing.
No not at all because some make the claim it IS sexist. Why? Because either they are not incentivising women enough or they are conditioning young girls away from it. See at base tacks the most innocuous thing or disparity could be turned around to a nonsensical "Sexist because men have penises".
when people try defining the people of Iraq, Iran, Egypt or Afganistan on the basis of the teachings of the most crazy fundamentalists. Really dishonest.
Lol you don't get it, do you? We're talking about sexism in Iran, Iraq etc because it is LEGALLY ENFORCED.
For example, the WBC homophobia is not legally enforced in the US. Gays aren't killed for being gay. In Iran they are. If I was to judge America based on the WBC, that would be silly. To judge Iran as homophobic (AS A COUNTRY, ie legally, politically) is perfectly sane though - they execute them.
No one's judging all Iranians or Iraqis based on what an extreme religious minorty say. We're talking about sexism that is actually legally enforced.
You don't get it do you? The people controlling the country are not "the people". If overnight France successfully invaded England and replaced their laws with French laws would you say in a month from now IF you were being law abiding that you were accepting and believed in the laws and the new customs and everything OR would you be going along with it because you had no choice?
Say that a people are sexist then unless you are talking specifically about the crazy fundamentalists themselves then I am happy to call bullshit.
We're saying the country itself is sexist. Its regime or whatever. Not necessarily every member of the population.
Apologies to anyone reading this. I don't have the energy to put this into words properly, so I'll admit it is likely very rambling.
Or hell, most people in the population. As per my French example above
-
OK it is getting late. I will be going to bed soon. My going to bed doesn't mean I consider the callout over. If I do not post for many hours tomorrow, that too doesn't mean that it is over. I am going shopping with my kids and visiting friend and having dinner at friends. Then packing lunch for kids for school on Monday.
Just to let you know Adam, in case you jump too quickly to silly conclusions. Furthermore IF I do post tomorrow morning, I will likely be pressed for time and possibly will not be able to answer much. This does not mean I have given up either. It simply means that it is my weekend and I am busy.
See how silly some of your assumptions are and how unnecessary this is to explain?
Lol, I never said I assumed you'd given up because you hadn''t been on for a few hours.
I said I assumed you'd given up because you came in, replied only to one little bit that wasn't even related to the callout, then left and started posting elsewhere.
My fault though - I should have realised that it clearly takes you several hours to make each response.
I agree it was silly assumptions all around by you and yes, it was your fault.
-
a culture that places them in much more danger than the women
Again, the fact that men are generally more at risk of being killed in armed conflict etc means nothing in this argument. Sure, men are more liekly to die fighting. So? Does that automatically mean there's no sexism? Your logic really is failing abysmally on that one
I think rather than really consider things, people quite often just call sexist.
Yep. True. Much like people sometimes play the race card or disability card. Doesn't mean there isn't also genuine racism etc. Nowadays, people can often be way too quick to call something sexist, and it gets ridiculous. I really don't think you can say that women being legally prevented from leaving the house falls into that category though. Nor does husbands being allowed to rape their wives fall into that category.
Then do, by all means.
I have. Clearly you haven't.
Have you ever read a book in your entire life?
But then you did the callout. Now you are stuck with me. It was quite your own fault.
Lol. No. I did the callout yes. The callout had absolutely NOTHING to do with "cavemen" and their sex lives though.
As to what species do. No I am talking about humans. Species don't drive cars, worship gods or land on the moon. We are talking about Humans. So rather than see this in terms of some biological drive which overrides any thought, you will have to do a little better.
Uh, aren't humans biological animals too? I thought you were trying to explain your "point" though some kind of pseudo-scientific bollocks. So I thought I'd respond with some basic biology too. Now you tell me to stop talking about biology?
It is a simplistic cop out. Men then, like men now, most likely loved their kids and probably more than fancied their wife.
Generally, yes. Of course. And? Butterflies made an excellent point about this in the peanut gallery. I won't bother repeating it here.
If I told you that many of the old women in Iraq have an education and many were working for much of their adult life, what would you say? What if I said that most of the younger women do not? Would that suggest to you some big change in society? If I told you that the Iraq of the past was a very progressive place and very much advanced, would you deny that? Why then is it stymied now? But here is the big one. If it is going backwards in becoming this restrictive culture then is that likely that the reason for it is something along the lines of, that is because the people of and in Iraq agree it is best OR a small but controlling population within Iraq is trying to dominate the country with laws and impose a culture that oppresses all of them and that they do not want or need"?
Finally you're actually (kind of) getting to the point of the callout!
But you're still kind of missing it at the same time. Regardless of WHY women are treated as inferior in Iraq, the fact is that they are. And that in itself is clearly sexism in its most basic form. You deny that?
Think about it.
That, coming from you, is kind of like George Bush and his "is are children learning?" quote. Being told to "think" by you of all people. Haha!
But I am getting sidetracked.
Really? I think you were getting sidetracked in your first post
As for whether a woman not choosing her suitor, remember the bit about the Father having to make decisions for the daughter when she is a child and the husband take responsibility for the girl when he marries her? This was part of that. She basically was allowing Father carte blanche
Wtf? She was ALLOWING her father to make those decisions? No. She had no choice. That's the point.
No not at all because some make the claim it IS sexist. Why? Because either they are not incentivising women enough or they are conditioning young girls away from it. See at base tacks the most innocuous thing or disparity could be turned around to a nonsensical "Sexist because men have penises".
Again, isn't this callout meant to be between me and you? Not you arguing with an invisible enemy of feminists? As I've already said, people are often accused of sexism unjustly. That has fuck all to do with this though. The callout is about what I was calling sexist. I am not saying society is sexist because there are less women in IT. So why the hell are you arguing with me about that?
And again, "sexist because men have penises" - surely you can grasp by now that that "argument" REALLY doesn't apply to me?
You don't get it do you? The people controlling the country are not "the people".
Lol. OMFG. I never said they are. Jesus Christ. I am saying the LAWS, the LIFE of women, the SOCIETY is sexist. Not every fucking Iraqi. Of course the laws aren't made by every Iraqi man. The laws ARE sexist though.
Fuck me, this is like arguing with a brick wall.
If overnight France successfully invaded England and replaced their laws with French laws would you say in a month from now IF you were being law abiding that you were accepting and believed in the laws and the new customs and everything OR would you be going along with it because you had no choice?
The laws would still be French though. Yet you'd be sat here arguing with me that they were German.
-
a culture that places them in much more danger than the women
Again, the fact that men are generally more at risk of being killed in armed conflict etc means nothing in this argument. Sure, men are more likely to die fighting. So? Does that automatically mean there's no sexism? Your logic really is failing abysmally on that one
Says you. It would make a rather compelling argument if it was women setting up men to spend their time getting killed off battles to defend the women's lands, Defending her honour, undertaking dangerous jobs to make more money to provide for her or defending the house (extension really of the country) to keep her safe.
That would make a perfectly good argument for sexism......against her.
You are not saying that though and nor am I. You are saying "Who cares if all of the above is what a man risks, it makes him superior than her. It is a culture that he has done to put himself at risk and not her, and he has cleverly done this without women's knowledge or consent?". (Stupidest plan in the world)
I do not find that logic follows at all.
I think rather than really consider things, people quite often just call sexist.
Yep. True. Much like people sometimes play the race card or disability card. Doesn't mean there isn't also genuine racism etc. Nowadays, people can often be way too quick to call something sexist, and it gets ridiculous. I really don't think you can say that women being legally prevented from leaving the house falls into that category though. Nor does husbands being allowed to rape their wives fall into that category.
Again are you talking about what the wacko fundamentalists preach OR are you talking about what the Iraqui people practice. Are you prepared to talk about Christians and cite the Westboro Baptist as your inspiration for the American Christian's values and morality?
If you aren't then perhaps citing a nation's morality or values is a bit rich.
If you say "Yes OK not all..." No that too is not nearly good enough either as in fact MOST does not meet that concession. "Not all" gives the impression of a few decent ones but most attach themselves to a large faction of religious zealots trying to drag the society into the Dark Ages.
That is as best misleading.
I think you would be better either saying "a small minority of Iraqui people" or perhaps just saying the religious fundamentalists and their supporter" both would be accurate and fair "The Iraqui people is not" nor are pronouncements made on behalf of them based on the preaching and practices of the religious zealots who enforce these practices on an oppressed Iraqui people.
Make sense? No. I know Adam. You struggle.
Then do, by all means.
I have. Clearly you haven't.
Have you ever read a book in your entire life?
I have a few extra years on you, so rather ironically there is a good chance I have read more than you.
But we are not going to try and turn this into a I have read more than you, debate are we? Be like having a debate who has the worst Dad or something. Complete bullshit derailment. Stupid question.
But then you did the callout. Now you are stuck with me. It was quite your own fault.
Lol. No. I did the callout yes. The callout had absolutely NOTHING to do with "cavemen" and their sex lives though.
Yes you did make the callout. It was your choice whether to or not. You can not control what I type or the quantity or the quality or me saying the things you want me to say or taking the callout where you would want.
Bad luck Adam. It is not going the way you want and I simply don't care.
I would stop moaning about it if I were you and get on with it
As to what species do. No I am talking about humans. Species don't drive cars, worship gods or land on the moon. We are talking about Humans. So rather than see this in terms of some biological drive which overrides any thought, you will have to do a little better.
Uh, aren't humans biological animals too? I thought you were trying to explain your "point" though some kind of pseudo-scientific bollocks. So I thought I'd respond with some basic biology too. Now you tell me to stop talking about biology?
Yes we are biologically driven but that can not be your answer if men do something non-sexist (or worse that makes a case against the culture being sexist) that they just did that because they are biologically driven BUT when they do something that looks like it could possibly make a point for your case that it is a thought out rational response to oppress women, because men consider themselves the superior gender and women inferior.
Arguments do not work that way.
It is a simplistic cop out. Men then, like men now, most likely loved their kids and probably more than fancied their wife.
Generally, yes. Of course. And? Butterflies made an excellent point about this in the peanut gallery. I won't bother repeating it here.
Then that is a point you have not made in this callout. I am cool with that. I will not bother discussing this with Butterflies or addressing Peanut Gallery comments here, using you as a medium to channel Butterflies.
If I told you that many of the old women in Iraq have an education and many were working for much of their adult life, what would you say? What if I said that most of the younger women do not? Would that suggest to you some big change in society? If I told you that the Iraq of the past was a very progressive place and very much advanced, would you deny that? Why then is it stymied now? But here is the big one. If it is going backwards in becoming this restrictive culture then is that likely that the reason for it is something along the lines of, that is because the people of and in Iraq agree it is best OR a small but controlling population within Iraq is trying to dominate the country with laws and impose a culture that oppresses all of them and that they do not want or need"?
Finally you're actually (kind of) getting to the point of the callout!
But you're still kind of missing it at the same time. Regardless of WHY women are treated as inferior in Iraq, the fact is that they are. And that in itself is clearly sexism in its most basic form. You deny that?
Men and women are both equally oppressed in different ways by a religious fundamentalist regime. The men risk their lives by going out onto the streets each day, but they have no choice, they must. The women who used to work side by side with their men can no longer do this and have to stay inside.
Both are oppressed and neither the man or the woman has a choice.
The laws and the religious practices by which they zealots (not the mainstream) preach and practice are oppressive to both genders equally but in very different ways.
Think about it.
That, coming from you, is kind of like George Bush and his "is are children learning?" quote. Being told to "think" by you of all people. Haha!
Because you are in a position to gauge intellect I suppose Adam? Yes? You kill me Adam. I often find myself at the stage where I think "I don't know how much further I can break this down for Adam. He truly can not join the dots. Either he is just trying to have a lend of me by pretending to be stupid OR he is not pretending.
But I am getting sidetracked.
Really? I think you were getting sidetracked in your first post
Incorrect use of the word "think". I do not believe you were thinking when you wrote that sentence
As for whether a woman not choosing her suitor, remember the bit about the Father having to make decisions for the daughter when she is a child and the husband take responsibility for the girl when he marries her? This was part of that. She basically was allowing Father carte blanche
Wtf? She was ALLOWING her father to make those decisions? No. She had no choice. That's the point.
In your imaginary world, men have obligations that come with a set of treatments and women want the set of treatments in every instance and every culture but just without the obligation or expectation that comes with it.
It is not true. Even if you really, really want it to be true.
Many woman do not want to have the right to go outside their house because the men's right to go outside the house comes with an obligation that they must go out of the house and if the are obliged then they risk getting shot, harassed, beaten and whatever. They need the right to which to affix the obligation.
Similar to a policeman may have the right to be carry weapons or arrest people (unlike the public) because (unlike the public) he will have the obligation to use the weapons and arrest people
Men in Iraq have the right to work and the obligation to provide for the family. If Iraqui women had the right, then it would be attached to a similar set of obligations.
If you say that most women want this, then I say the thinking thing that you mentioned you are doing, you aren't.
Men have the obligation to making decisions in the interest of the family in this culture and olden day cultures. They also are responsible for every decision and every problem that comes up as a result of. There is no "Ok I want to be able to make decisions on this, this and this but I don't want any responsibility or to take on everything". If she were to want to fix any problem in respect to something she has stuffed up on, the she would not have the obligation nor the associated rights to fix it . So again the obligations she gives away. It has become a social rule accepted.
Now, personally, I can comment on today's Western society's division of rights and responsibilities and say it is more or less right in respect to where we are in terms of political, cultural, medical, technological standard. Trying to imprint our rights, responsibilities on Iraq or Sixteeth Century society is rather silly.
You know what is even sillier? I can see you looking at this point and say "WTF have police got to do with Iraq and Iraqui women? Iraqui women can not become police!" and I will shake my head and sigh and say "Ah Adam, how can I break this down for you?"
No not at all because some make the claim it IS sexist. Why? Because either they are not incentivising women enough or they are conditioning young girls away from it. See at base tacks the most innocuous thing or disparity could be turned around to a nonsensical "Sexist because men have penises".
Again, isn't this callout meant to be between me and you? Not you arguing with an invisible enemy of feminists? As I've already said, people are often accused of sexism unjustly. That has fuck all to do with this though. The callout is about what I was calling sexist. I am not saying society is sexist because there are less women in IT. So why the hell are you arguing with me about that?
And again, "sexist because men have penises" - surely you can grasp by now that that "argument" REALLY doesn't apply to me?
Feminism has infused itself into society. When people think feminism they automatically parrot "I believe in Feminism, I believe in equal rights for women/for equality" or "I am a Feminist I believe in equal rights"
They do this in the same way that people thinking about Autism "Yeah Autistic people are good with numbers and have special talents..."
People do not think and are happy to ascribe sexism where it doesn't exist or look at women and overlook the man and his plight completely. It is a blindspot. It also means that they focus on seeing inequities where they do not exist, for fear that they may still exist or that fear-mongering may root out any issue to be dealt with.
It is conditioned into society. Therefore the instinct is to jump to defence of women. Sometimes it is simply unwarranted and men's issues ignored. It is "invisible" not feminists like you claim, they are more visible.
Treating people differently even according to gender is not sexist. Sorry, but it just is not. Treating another gender as inferior is sexist. If you think that men in society do and always have then I have a seat on the Titanic for you. I want you to tell me before you sink if you are surrounded by men or inferior women.
You don't get it do you? The people controlling the country are not "the people".
Lol. OMFG. I never said they are. Jesus Christ. I am saying the LAWS, the LIFE of women, the SOCIETY is sexist. Not every fucking Iraqi. Of course the laws aren't made by every Iraqi man. The laws ARE sexist though.
Fuck me, this is like arguing with a brick wall.
Believe me I feel the same, I persist though, despite your anchoring the debate.
If overnight France successfully invaded England and replaced their laws with French laws would you say in a month from now IF you were being law abiding that you were accepting and believed in the laws and the new customs and everything OR would you be going along with it because you had no choice?
The laws would still be French though. Yet you'd be sat here arguing with me that they were German.
No I would be arguing that the people being accused of being French, were actually English, and with English sensibilities, and not invested in the French culture thrust on them. I would also be arguing how fucking stupid you were as an oppressed Englishman arguing that you were not oppressed for being occupied and beholden to laws and practices you do not agree with. Which is the position I am taking here isn't it?
Silly comparison Adam. Very silly.
-
OK it is getting late. I will be going to bed soon. My going to bed doesn't mean I consider the callout over. If I do not post for many hours tomorrow, that too doesn't mean that it is over. I am going shopping with my kids and visiting friend and having dinner at friends. Then packing lunch for kids for school on Monday.
Just to let you know Adam, in case you jump too quickly to silly conclusions. Furthermore IF I do post tomorrow morning, I will likely be pressed for time and possibly will not be able to answer much. This does not mean I have given up either. It simply means that it is my weekend and I am busy.
See how silly some of your assumptions are and how unnecessary this is to explain?
Lol, I never said I assumed you'd given up because you hadn''t been on for a few hours.
I said I assumed you'd given up because you came in, replied only to one little bit that wasn't even related to the callout, then left and started posting elsewhere.
My fault though - I should have realised that it clearly takes you several hours to make each response.
Yes making rather stupid assumptions with no merit is your fault.
-
Treating people differently even according to gender is not sexist. Sorry, but it just is not. Treating another gender as inferior is sexist.
the free dictionary.com
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
-
Again are you talking about what the wacko fundamentalists preach OR are you talking about what the Iraqui people practice. Are you prepared to talk about Christians and cite the Westboro Baptist as your inspiration for the American Christian's values and morality?
:facepalm:
Les, I'm getting tired of having to repeat things when you either ignore them or don't understand them
As I've already said, that is entirely different as the WBC don't make policy in the US. If they did, if gay people were locked up for example, then yes, I'd say the US is a homophobic country.
I think you would be better either saying "a small minority of Iraqui people" or perhaps just saying the religious fundamentalists and their supporter" both would be accurate and fair "The Iraqui people is not" nor are pronouncements made on behalf of them based on the preaching and practices of the religious zealots who enforce these practices on an oppressed Iraqui people.
Lol, do you actually read my responses to you? Can't you grasp that I am talking about "Iraq" legally, politically etc. Not every single fucking Iraqi? The fact is that women are treated as inferior in Iraq. Whether or not every single Iraqi man views his wife as inferior is irrelevant to the argument.
Yes you did make the callout. It was your choice whether to or not. You can not control what I type or the quantity or the quality or me saying the things you want me to say or taking the callout where you would want.
Your're right - I can't control whether or not you actually address the callout or not.
Yes, men are at more risk of being killed when they leave their homes. obviously.
Whether something is sexist or not (and this applies to you Titanic thing too) is not based on a calculating of exactly how it AFFECTS each gender. It comes much earlier than that - motives, reasons WHY they are in that position. Not what happens because of it.
The REASON women are kept inside is sexist. The outcome of that is irrelevant.
The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.
-
Again are you talking about what the wacko fundamentalists preach OR are you talking about what the Iraqui people practice. Are you prepared to talk about Christians and cite the Westboro Baptist as your inspiration for the American Christian's values and morality?
:facepalm:
Les, I'm getting tired of having to repeat things when you either ignore them or don't understand them
As I've already said, that is entirely different as the WBC don't make policy in the US. If they did, if gay people were locked up for example, then yes, I'd say the US is a homophobic country.
Adam stop whinging. I want you to consider this really hard, I do not care what you like or dislike or want or don't want. I don't care. It makes no difference how you want me to post or what motivates you or what works best for you. I certainly am not going to accommodate you. In fact the more you try to reframe the callout or get me to adhere to a set of rules the more I am happy to ignore or actively seek out the opposite.
"Having to repeat yourself"? You don't have to. Do you? It makes no difference to me. Really if whatever you post made no impression first time around it is a bit stupid to think it will second time around is it? Think about it. Am I right?
I would say in your example that you would be wrong and I would have said it first time around.
This is called a difference of opinion.
I think you would be better either saying "a small minority of Iraqui people" or perhaps just saying the religious fundamentalists and their supporter" both would be accurate and fair "The Iraqui people is not" nor are pronouncements made on behalf of them based on the preaching and practices of the religious zealots who enforce these practices on an oppressed Iraqui people.
Lol, do you actually read my responses to you? Can't you grasp that I am talking about "Iraq" legally, politically etc. Not every single fucking Iraqi? The fact is that women are treated as inferior in Iraq. Whether or not every single Iraqi man views his wife as inferior is irrelevant to the argument.
Yes I read your responses and I disagree with your assertions.
You can not grasp what I am talking about. I disagree with what you are talking about.
News just in. "Al does not HAVE to agree with Adam because Adam believes something."
Most Iraquis do not agree with the Mullahs and religious fundamentalists and warlord. Not "some don't" or "not every single Iraqui" MOST do not subscribe to the version of wacky fundamentalism. All but those who are part of the fundamentalists that are taking a wrecking ball to their society are oppressed by this. Women, Man and child. I know I know, YOU think this makes women more inferior or more oppressed AND more inferior.
Again, I disagree. I think they are both equally oppressed, and in completely different ways.
Yes you did make the callout. It was your choice whether to or not. You can not control what I type or the quantity or the quality or me saying the things you want me to say or taking the callout where you would want.
Your're right - I can't control whether or not you actually address the callout or not.
Yes, men are at more risk of being killed when they leave their homes. obviously.
Whether something is sexist or not (and this applies to you Titanic thing too) is not based on a calculating of exactly how it AFFECTS each gender. It comes much earlier than that - motives, reasons WHY they are in that position. Not what happens because of it.
The REASON women are kept inside is sexist. The outcome of that is irrelevant.
The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.
Adam, you do not get it. You do not get what you are saying, and the way you are saying it. To prove that your argument holds no water I will make a slight change
Edited for effect.
Your're right - I can't control whether or not you actually address the callout or not.
Yes, women stay inside their homes. obviously.
Whether something is sexist or not (and this applies to you Titanic thing too) is not based on a calculating of exactly how it AFFECTS each gender. It comes much earlier than that - motives, reasons WHY they are in that position. Not what happens because of it.
The REASON men are at more risk of being killed when they leave their homes is sexist. The outcome of that is irrelevant.
The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.
See what happened there?
Yes that is right, sword cuts both ways.
The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.
What this says to me is "The sooner you agree with me and my opinion is the sooner we can share our mutual opinion together.
You forget what this is Adam? Do you forget who made the callout and for what purpose?
I did not make this callout. I would not have made it. It is an unpopular viewpoint and not one I wanted to argue over. You did want to and you made a callout. I was always going to accept. I do not run from any callout.
So here we are and here is you asking me to just agree with you and I say, "No". Not because you want. Not because your opinion is more popular. Not because you are tiring discussing it. Not because you dislike my answers.
If it really is that rough for you that a couple of pages in, you are whinging, then I strongly suggest you should not have started the callout in the first instance. Just as you probably ought not have made that initial (Yes Shleed, I see you lying in the Peanut gallery about who started insulting who) insult at me if you did not want me to insult you in the beginning of the callout. Earlier you made comments about my apparent (to you) inability to think. Neither of these shows great foresight Adam.
Between you and me, I am not nearly done with this debate.
-
Treating people differently even according to gender is not sexist. Sorry, but it just is not. Treating another gender as inferior is sexist.
the free dictionary.com
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Thank you for poking your head in Bodie
Have a look at the introductory post and see which definition that you believe Adam is attaching to "sexism"
There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately :M
So, go on, Les
I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.
Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.
Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right
Please come up with a better argument
Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 words. Cheers.
I believe it is not the bolded bit that you tried to inject in this discussion and I further believe that trying to change the meaning over to that bolded meaning will not only muddy the waters but potentially change the arguments. I am happy to forgo such interference.
OK. So thank you for trying to join in with Adam but he has the more popular viewpoint and has been here a while. He should be able to hold his own. You have said your bit I hope ,and I hope that you will not be posting further in this callout. Thanks
-
Adam, you do not get it. You do not get what you are saying, and the way you are saying it. To prove that your argument holds no water I will make a slight change
Edited for effect.
Your're right - I can't control whether or not you actually address the callout or not.
Yes, women stay inside their homes. obviously.
Whether something is sexist or not (and this applies to you Titanic thing too) is not based on a calculating of exactly how it AFFECTS each gender. It comes much earlier than that - motives, reasons WHY they are in that position. Not what happens because of it.
The REASON men are at more risk of being killed when they leave their homes is sexist. The outcome of that is irrelevant.
The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.
See what happened there?
Yes that is right, sword cuts both ways.
Lol, no. Because men aren't out of the home because they're viewed as inferior. Women's position in society is due to the fact that they are viewed as below men. Men's position is society is not becuase THEY are viewed as inferior. because they're not.
You forget what this is Adam? Do you forget who made the callout and for what purpose?
Of course I remember - that's the entire reason I've been trying to make you actually address the callout, and not other issues of no relevance.
I did not make this callout. I would not have made it. It is an unpopular viewpoint and not one I wanted to argue over.
So you decide whether or not to make a callout based on how popular your viewpoint will be?
Earlier you made comments about my apparent (to you) inability to think. Neither of these shows great foresight Adam.
How so? I think you've more than proven you find it difficult to debate properly
-
Have a look at the introductory post and see which definition that you believe Adam is attaching to "sexism"
???
-
I do apologise to both Les and Adam. I posted by mistake as I thought it was the other thread which is not in the callout.
A classic case of summer holiday mom-brain :screwy:
Sorry guys.
-
^ Typical fucking woman, eh Les? :zoinks:
-
^ Typical fucking woman, eh Les? :zoinks:
I dunno Adam, what exactly do you think the typical woman is and what do you think I think the typical woman is?
-
Have a look at the introductory post and see which definition that you believe Adam is attaching to "sexism"
???
Your post Adam, why be confused?
-
What definition of sexism you think I was making
-
What definition of sexism you think I was making
Well here is an opportunity isn't it Adam? Should I give you a definition which you can deny pick apart with semantics and shy away from OR should I use the basis of that initial post and all that have come after that to inform where you are coming from? What do you think may be a good idea?
-
Maybe you could just explain what definition of sexism you think I was using.
-
Adam, you do not get it. You do not get what you are saying, and the way you are saying it. To prove that your argument holds no water I will make a slight change
Edited for effect.
Your're right - I can't control whether or not you actually address the callout or not.
Yes, women stay inside their homes. obviously.
Whether something is sexist or not (and this applies to you Titanic thing too) is not based on a calculating of exactly how it AFFECTS each gender. It comes much earlier than that - motives, reasons WHY they are in that position. Not what happens because of it.
The REASON men are at more risk of being killed when they leave their homes is sexist. The outcome of that is irrelevant.
The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.
See what happened there?
Yes that is right, sword cuts both ways.
Lol, no. Because men aren't out of the home because they're viewed as inferior. Women's position in society is due to the fact that they are viewed as below men. Men's position is society is not becuase THEY are viewed as inferior. because they're not.
So the average male in Iraq view women as sexist. You may want to tell him that. If you can find him. Many of them are wiped out due to a number of wars they have fought to protect their women from that the women were not in. Those you can find you may have to ask whilst they are on the move and possibly avoiding assault and being shot at, whilst providing for their women at home. Actually you would make a great distraction :autism:
You forget what this is Adam? Do you forget who made the callout and for what purpose?
Of course I remember - that's the entire reason I've been trying to make you actually address the callout, and not other issues of no relevance.
....and you have found trying to "make me" do anything does not work for you. That said, me not agreeing with you and not answering the points on this callout are not the same thing. I have certainly been answering them, I am just not dazzled by your logic and disagree with your assertions
I did not make this callout. I would not have made it. It is an unpopular viewpoint and not one I wanted to argue over.
So you decide whether or not to make a callout based on how popular your viewpoint will be?
There are a number of things that I factor before making a callout. Relevance, whether I think it is worth pursuing, How badly I want to counter their point and/or hear what they are saying AND if I think that it is something is not popular then yeah, I don't bother. This ticked a few of those boxes
Earlier you made comments about my apparent (to you) inability to think. Neither of these shows great foresight Adam.
How so? I think you've more than proven you find it difficult to debate properly
Says you. I think that you have been difficult to try to discuss anything with. Like herding a cat.
-
Maybe you could just explain what definition of sexism you think I was using.
I could and I choose not to.
-
Lol, well then I think you've kinda lost a point there, mate.
I can't really address that if you don't properly explain whatever it is you were getting at.
-
And I really don't think your big reply about cavemen was properly responding to the points of the callout now, was it?
Also I think it's interesting that you won't make a callout if you think most people will disagree with you. What happened to principles?
-
And I really don't think your big reply about cavemen was properly responding to the points of the callout now, was it?
Also I think it's interesting that you won't make a callout if you think most people will disagree with you. What happened to principles?
You did not read what I wrote did you?
No you can't have because you just wrote " you won't make a callout if you think most people will disagree with you. What happened to principles?" and I did not say that but I did say that it was one of the factors that would help determine that and I did say that in this particular instance it was one of a few factors.....so come again.
-
:laugh:
Lol ok
-
Lol, well then I think you've kinda lost a point there, mate.
I can't really address that if you don't properly explain whatever it is you were getting at.
Really? OK here is what I think. I think I give you a definition and REGARDLESS of what definition you had in your mind and regardless if it matches or mostly matches what you were on about, you will then look at any definition that is as far removed from my definition as possible and bog this down to pointless semantics as you say "well see I did not think that and I actually thought "blah, blah, blah" I then show how you could not possibly have thought about "blah, blah, blah" because that blah, blah, blah" definition does not accord with the point you made on this post, that post or that post. Then you argue semantics on the spot and it bogs down further.....
No.
Fuck that. Lose a point? You kill me :P
Gotta go to work
-
Going to be offline for a bit at Calvrary hospital with ex and daughter. Daughter hit by car
-
OK dude. Hope it's nothing serious
-
Worried about her and still in hospital. Been with her all night. She is sleeping now.
I won't lie, I am pretty shattered. Can't contribute to debate today, overtired, under slept and fucking worried and stressed. I just hope my baby is ok.
-
No worries, some things just aren't important.
I hope she's ok and recovers asap
-
OK, let's keep going. I will get a lot of sleep when I am dead.
One thing with this which I think has been a little bit missed in the discourse. I have taken it on board to presume so things I say will be able to be contextualised on the basis of the debate. I may be wrong. Not the first time I have been wrong about things so I will breakdown things in a different way so you MAY be more able to see my argument (Not here saying that anyone here may be at fault for not understanding what I said, goes both ways. I may not have been as clear as i believed. unfortunately when I see people ignoring a point or questioning a point I think it them being deliberately obtuse)
The caveman thing has and seems to keep coming up.
My point in my analogy here are:
* Providing why "I" believe that there is difference in the social roles and how historically I can see a logical gravitation to those roles and obligations.
* Why I see the benefit in both and the associated obligation in both (whilst acknowledging the disadvantages in both)
* Why I see that he male disposability has a historical purpose and a place in the debate in terms of inferiority of gender
* Why I see it is not a good assumption to make when considering looking at the advantageous society of today and imprinting standards of treatment today as it does not meet objectives realities of today.
* The oppression of a people (by religious bullying, invasion, enslavement, no access to modern health care, technology, and so on) is not necessarily more onerous on the women. Neither is taking up "traditional roles" more onerous.
* Men taking on "tribal male role" in "caveman societies" were not taking on a position of privilege.
* Obligations bestowed on males have been traditionally ones tied explicitly and implicitly to benefit women (and children)
Now the reason I wanted to mention this back to the beginning of things is that it is VERY easy to make some assumptions base on opinions infused into our culture by virtue of feminism. I don't know what Adam or others believe or hold in the heart as truths or accepted normalcy. By getting back to explain what I see as cultural beginnings and the reason for roles being established and why they were necessary and beneficial to the whole society, and mutually beneficial trading off of obligations and rights, it shows a different approach to why men in society have had different roles to women.
It also does not say that this should remain. I do not think it should. I think my little girl ought (in today's society) to choose whether to marry or not, what position in society she ought to aspire to do, whether she has children or not, and also in knowing that she is supported by her Dad and Mum and by society.
It is bizarre to me that people should imprint today's cultural norms on another and say "Meh, that society is so sexist". The "Patriarchy" that Feminists has prattled on about over the last 50 years DOES creep into the cultural discourse. It filters and shades the way we all look at things.
It is mostly bullshit, mostly. Here is where the danger is the best kind of lie is one with a bit of truth in it.
"Men rape, therefore all men are potential rapists" very powerful message. Now we know that the subject matter is serious and not dismissible. We can of course say not ALL men. But even attacking this here, it doesn't get to what the message is doing to those viewing the message. It also says this very subtlety (the subtlety that unfortunately does sneak into Feminist propaganda to change culture) "Men rape, how can you REALLY pick out the man who rapes from the man that does not". Now we could throw up stats or whatever BUT it helps make a culture of women who are in fear of men and in fear of their own safety. Women are less of risk of violence statistically than men. Far more violences happens to men than women but men are statistically not nearly as fearful or violence perpetrated at them. But that is just one example off the top of my head.
Now Adam may say "But I am not a Feminist or even discussing that shit". What Adam is doing is not filtering a lot of generalisations made about men or about obligations or rights in a culture or society. (Specifically the societies that endorsed the outdated "obey" clause in marriage vows, Or that which obliged Fathers to "give away the bride, or differences in "modern day Iraq" - an Iraq which has been reverting back to 1950's values and which had probably hit a point in 1985 or thereabouts that it had a similar values in respect to women's rights and place in society as any Western culture) As a result basing discussing points which require a presupposition of a lot of premises which are NOT givens, is not going to work unless the premises even if wrong are enticing.
Worse still, I hope this has been shown by Adam's want to say "Well obviously more men will die" or such shows a weakness in making such dismissals. Why? Because it means we seriously HAVE to believe, IF we believe in the sexism in the roles that Adam has ASSUMED exists.
Men have cleverly assumed roles in society that place them at risk to die, and women wanted in. Men oblige themselves to option-less obligations which expose them to harm instead of women and women in this society wanted hat obligation. Men have chosen to oblige themselves to roles which all risk and financial burden and social shortfall of his whole family is his and his alone, and that this is not done by consent. Men will oblige themselves to defend their country instead of allowing their women and children to fight and the women who risk getting widowed are harder done by than the men being killed, or shellshocked or severely maimed - and women throughout the ages considered the fact they could not join in the fun not as good.
Falling short of these is perhaps, just perhaps, an acceptance that in society, until such time that women's life expectancy was increased due to "man"-made contraceptives and better child birthing healthcare, and a stable society and culture was in place, women simply were not in a position that they could have the opportunities that they did in the same way that Gronk the male Caveman could not have taken advantage of studying Rocket Science with a view to join the Space Program.
It does not say that there is not sexism in Iraq or in societies that developed giving daughter away at wedding cultures. Doesn't say that at all. It does not say that some men may not use the aspects of role in society to be sexist. It does not mean that I am stupid for not "getting" Adam. Nor does it mean that I myself am sexist for not openly embracing any Men are Sexist commentary I see, simply because someone said it, or because I am a man. Those that may think that this is so, need their heads read.
-
How is this "Men are sexist" commentary?
Since when did I say all men are sexist?
I'm not sexist. Plenty of other guys I know are not sexist. I said the legal system in Iraq etc, the practice of "giving away" wives to their husbands etc, all THESE THINGS are sexist
If you interpret that as "all men are sexist" then that says more about your insecurity or chip on your shoulder.
Why is it bizarre to you that we would call it sexist?
Would it be bizarre for me to call racism racism, just becuase it's from a different culture or time?
You say you do not think these old "traditional" ways should remain. Why is that? Could it possibly be because you see that it is inherently sexist and therefore wrong?
-
How is this "Men are sexist" commentary?
Since when did I say all men are sexist?
I'm not sexist. Plenty of other guys I know are not sexist. I said the legal system in Iraq etc, the practice of "giving away" wives to their husbands etc, all THESE THINGS are sexist
If you interpret that as "all men are sexist" then that says more about your insecurity or chip on your shoulder.
Why is it bizarre to you that we would call it sexist?
Would it be bizarre for me to call racism racism, just becuase it's from a different culture or time?
You say you do not think these old "traditional" ways should remain. Why is that? Could it possibly be because you see that it is inherently sexist and therefore wrong?
No it is not me having a chip on my shoulder.
Quite often people get a bit cagey with the word "sexism" which is part of the reason I did not want to define your definition to allow you similar scope to be cagey. It is good actually that you keep introducing things like
Would it be bizarre for me to call racism racism, just becuase it's from a different culture or time?
It allows us to see you are saying Racism is on par with sexism.
Again Bodie's definition she bolded - which may well have also included practices which were less negative than anti-woman sexism the same way as racism is anti-race.
I do not think that you think that all men are sexist. I believe that Feminism that informs our culture, is anti-male and not about gender equality. I think that because it informs our beliefs it MUST not lend us to make base assumptions it would have us make.
I have already said a few times why I do not think that these things were sexist in olden day times when giving away of daughters was the norm. I have also said why I think they would be sexist in today's society. You did see me write them, right?
If I write it again below you are not going to ask me again another few ages in are you?
My daughter lives in a culture that has access to modern technology and immunisations and brilliant healthcare.
(OK here is Butterflies' chance to say in the Peanut Gallery "Hurrrr derp he is going back in time again, Huurrr he does that all the time. He is shit at callouts and soooo stupid. That is why he embarassed me in his callout on me and mine on him ....Derp, derp, derp)
If she was born in say, 1600, she possibly would not gave survived childbirth - good chance. She may not have made it through childhood due to diseases that we now do not ever experience in first world countries. If she survived that then she was likely to experience a bad case of agonising death in trying to give burt to her own children. What is more, we have a welfare system in place and so given that and the high chance that our kids will all survive childhood and we have a system that will take care of us if we can't take care of ourselves, we have no need to have lots of kids. IF my daughter were to survive bearing a child she would repeat the process many times.
So as a female her chances of dying at birth, during childhood, giving birth with baby number 2-8? was pretty high.
Now given ALL of this, does it make more or less sense that she should have less children? That her husband ought not be responsible for finances and keeping the family afloat and making decisions for the continuation of the family and to provide for the family?
Imagine being an employer back then.
Employer "Hello Miss. How can I help you?"
Miss: "I would like a job I am 15 now and would work ever so hard. I want to earn some money for myself as I am not obligated to spend it on anyone else. I wanted to buy something nice for myself before my wedding next year"
Employer: You are getting married?
Miss: "Indeed. I am really excited. I can't wait. I am planning to have lots of children too"
Employer thinking : "Great option here. She will possibly be with me at very best for a year and a half before being pregnant and then unable to do that particular work a few months later and then having a baby which she will very likely die of and if she doesn't she will be off work for a while and if she comes back, she will shortly be pregnant again and may die from that birthing again.....or I can hire young Jim who's Dad is here. Jim states he will put in a lot of hours because he is marrying and about to start a family and is obliged to provide for them. He said he will stay with us for life. Hard choice"
Employer: No Miss it is OK I did have a position but young Jim has got it.
Was he sexist or was he simply registering olden day social, medical, technological realities which do not exist here?
I am well aware I hammed this up too so please do not go there. I am making a point as to the different realities and why imprinting todays social norms over a society without recognising the differences there is fucking dishonest or ignorant at best.
You say you do not think these old "traditional" ways should remain. Why is that? Could it possibly be because you see that it is inherently sexist and therefore wrong?
No.
It does not say that a society may change due to better welfare, healthcare and life expectancy to allow for more option of the citizens of that culture and in being less restricted, then it may be unnecessary, illegal, bigoted, sexist or whatever to restrict them then. Being stymied because of the social factors I mentioned does NOT make your society sexist if you are not giving the bed solution afford because of your restrictions.
I am not sure where the difficulty is in appreciation that fact is?
Now could you say that Giving away your daughter in a wedding today is sexist then? Yes you can. Are you being sexist as a father if you do?
I don't think so.
"Wh...what????" Says Adam. think that the custom is quaint. It is like a lot of the things associated with marriage, kind of outdated, irrelevant and quaint. Back in the olden days as a Dad, that would have been me thinking
"My baby is now going to be looked after by another man. I hope he will provide and protect her. I know that she will try to bear his children and may be dead in the next year. All I have done for her up to now, I hope this bloke is good for her and keeps her safe and happy."
Nowdays it wouldn't be that at all. It would be her enjoying her day and me playing my part in whatever she wanted and simply enjoying the moment free of any investment in any of those customs.
It would be like me doing a prayer. I don't believe in God so it would be going through the motions.
As to the "Men are Sexist commentary". Well you read the full post and not just the end paragraph, right?
You have throughout this thread and others, pointed to Men's roles in different traditional aspects of society and described them as sexist. So again I say you either believe:
"Men have cleverly assumed roles in society that place them at risk to die, and women wanted in. Men oblige themselves to option-less obligations which expose them to harm instead of women and women in this society wanted hat obligation. Men have chosen to oblige themselves to roles which all risk and financial burden and social shortfall of his whole family is his and his alone, and that this is not done by consent. Men will oblige themselves to defend their country instead of allowing their women and children to fight and the women who risk getting widowed are harder done by than the men being killed, or shellshocked or severely maimed - and women throughout the ages considered the fact they could not join in the fun not as good. "
OR you agree this is possibly not true and that the role men assumed are not sexist or with sexist intent.
-
What's wrong with the racism comments?
Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, whatever. They're all the same type of bigotry, just directed at different people.
Real feminism is about equality, not anti-men stuff. Sure, some "feminists" are definitely anti-men. ANd I have no time for that crap. But genuine feminism is obviously about equality, not bashing men or putting men down. I know self-described feminists who ARE men. And in that respect (wanting equality for men and women), I am one too.
I'm still not sure where you are coming from re "men are sexism commentary"
Yes, I have pointed to ways in which the relative positions of men and women throughout history have been sexist. That is not to say "men are sexist"
The role of men WAS sexist. I think it's obvious that that's what I'm saying. The men themselves were not necessarily sexist though.
Maybe I'm missing your point here. I find it difficult to follow long essays when they're written badly and are rambly and meandering.
Also, you seem to have been ignoring the middle east topic quite a lot again. You still havent fully explained how you came to your position that women aren't persecuted in Iraq etc
-
Ok, I saw in the peanut gallery that people have been asking for facts. And given that you've posted plenty of fucking ESSAY-length replies for me to read, here's some text back for you:
(it's nearly 2am and I have work to do tomorrow so this was pretty rushed , but I have included sources if you want to further research anything yourself. Apologies in advance for any typos etc
Women's inferior status and violence toward women in Iraq :
*****
Rise of so -called "pleasure marriages" (basically, OK-ed prostitution)
This isn't quite the same as "normal" prostitution though. The woman (unsurprisingly) has less of a say in the whole thing than the man does.
1. Married men can enter into it, although married women can't
2. Men can end the contract at any time, the woman can't
3. often the women are threatened or blackmailed into accepting it to avoid rape or violence
This is also related to a massive trafficking problem in Iraq and across the middle east
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm)
*****
Female Genital Mutilation
Practised on girls as young as 4 and involves the removal of the clitoris, but occasionally also the inner and outer labia.
THe very fact that this is done to control women's desires, make them "clean" and make them more attractive to men is enough to show that this is sexist, even when you ignore the actual violence of it:
“She has told me about the terrible pain, how much she bled that night and how ashamed she was to tell her family she was hurting. She couldn’t talk to her mother, because her mother was the one who’d taken her to be cut. She felt alone and scared.” (this is from someone growing up in Kirkuk, Iraq)
Long-term health consequences can result from the procedures, including infection, painful sexual intercourse, psychological trauma, and sterility.
Campaigner against FGM in Iraq - I think this speaks for itself. Clearly this is a society strongly AGAINST what this person is fighting for:
“I’ve had threats via text message, by phone, by letter, on the internet,” she says. “People come up to me in the street and insult me and political parties have issued threats.”
Her offices were broken into in July last year, and insults daubed on the wall. “I can’t really say what was written because it was too obscene. But one of the things written was ‘You should be scared for your lives, watch out’.”
Requests to the police to provide protection have so far been fruitless.
(and before you snipe back with a "not all Iraqi men support FGM", yes, I know that. Iraq =/= all Iraqis. We're talking legally & politically as well as socially.
http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/culture-alone-fails-to-account-for-female-genital-mutilation-420.html (http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/culture-alone-fails-to-account-for-female-genital-mutilation-420.html)
http://www.rferl.org/content/Female_Genital_Mutilation_Said_To_Be_Widespread_In_Iraqs_Irans_Kurdistan/1507621.html (http://www.rferl.org/content/Female_Genital_Mutilation_Said_To_Be_Widespread_In_Iraqs_Irans_Kurdistan/1507621.html)
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fighting-against-female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-8640121.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fighting-against-female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-8640121.html)
http://en.wadi-online.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1041:press-release--female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-study-shows-fgm-common-in-kirkuk&catid=15:presseerklaerungen&Itemid=109 (http://en.wadi-online.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1041:press-release--female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-study-shows-fgm-common-in-kirkuk&catid=15:presseerklaerungen&Itemid=109)
*****
Forced marriages
Yes, forced marriage. Not just "arranged marriages"
These women - sorry, girls, in many cases - have no say.
The rates of forced marriages of under 16s have also increased. This, in turn, can lead to higher rates of death during childbirth, as “girls between 15 and 18 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy and while giving birth than women between the ages of 20 and 24.”
Please don't tell me 14 yer old girls want or understand what they're getting into here. They're being given away by their fathers. At 15? Is that really necessary? Whatever pathetic justifications you try to spin on this ("oh, the father is just thinking, now I will pass you on to a good man who will take care of you"), that is completely ridiculous when we're talking about girls who haven't yet even reached the age of 18. A decent father would keep his children at home wherever possible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/middleeast/more-suicides-in-iraq-region-where-arranged-marriage-is-common.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/middleeast/more-suicides-in-iraq-region-where-arranged-marriage-is-common.html?_r=0)
http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/forced-marriages-of-girls-rise-in-iraq.html (http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/forced-marriages-of-girls-rise-in-iraq.html)
*****
Legal position of women
When Yusra* arrived at one of our shelters, she told a harrowing story of brutal abuse at the hands of her husband and her father. The shelter was the one place she could turn. Under the new constitution, she knew she wouldn’t get justice from the religious courts, where her testimony is worth half of her husband’s and where the laws allow the husband to “discipline” his wife.
That's not sexist? A woman's testimony is worth only half of that of her husband?
They came for Dr Khaula al-Tallal in a white Opel car after she took a taxi home to the middle class district of Qadissiya in Iraq's holy city of Najaf. She worked for the medical committee that examined patients to assess them for welfare benefit. Crucially, however, she was a woman in a country where being a female professional increasingly invites a death sentence.
As al-Tallal, 50, walked towards her house, one of three men in the Opel stepped out and raked her with bullets.
I suppose you'd say that the reason women don't have jobs in Iraq is just to keep them safe in the home right? Safe from the bullets and bombs?
If you really believe that, just becuase women are less likely to be killed by a sniper, they are being kept safe from violence, then have a read of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/08/iraq.peterbeaumont (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/08/iraq.peterbeaumont)
*****
Honor killings and domestic violence
If the women of Iraq are happy with being away from the bombs and the bullets and think it's all fucking great and brilliant, why the need for so many women's shelters and underground railroads to help them flee the country?
A UNICEF survey of adolescent girls aged 15–19, covering the years 2002-2009, asked them if they think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances; 57% responded yes.
In 2011, nearly half of girls aged 10 to 14 were exposed to violence at least once by a family member, and nearly half of married women were exposed to at least one form of spousal violence, mostly emotional, but also physical and sexual, according to a survey by the government and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).
Often ends in death:
2012
a man drenched his three daughters in boiling water and then shot them because he suspected them of having sex. An autopsy later showed they were all virgins. He received a sentence of just two years because of a stipulation in Iraq’s penal code which reduces murder to a maximum of three years in prison if a man surprises his wife or female dependants “in a state of adultery”
Please read that again, Les. Even if that had been an isolated case (hmm...), the fact that he received such a short sentence, the REASON why he received a short sentence, and the very fact that it was even deemed necessary to check if they were virgins afterwards... all this points towards women being the inferior class in Iraq.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-violence-women-iraq-20090420 (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-violence-women-iraq-20090420)
*****
War-related violence
Another "point" you've made is that women are kept safe in their homes away from the dangers of war. Sure, they may be statistically much less likely to be hit by a sniper, but a bomb in a mosque or a market place is pretty indescriminatory, and there's plenty of evidence to show that women WERE direct victims of the war
Yanar Mohammed comes to the following conclusion :
"According to our estimates, no fewer than 30 women were executed by the militias in Bagdad and in the suburbs. During the first ten days of November 2007, more than 150 unclaimed women's corpses, most of them decapitated, mutilated, or having evidence of extreme torture, were processed through the Bagdad morgue."
Anyway, is it REALLY just out of kind-heartedness and a desire to protect the women that they're kept in the kitchen?
Nuha Salim :
"The insurgents and militias do not want us in the professional sphere for various reasons: some because they believe women were born to stay at home - and cook and clean -- and others because they say that it is contrary to Islam that a man and woman should find themselves in the same place if they are not related."
When women;s illiteracy rates are more than double that of the male population, I think it's pretty clear that it's not just to protect the women. It's a cultural thing, yes, but it's a sexist cultural thing. Just as the "separate spheres" of Victorian men and women were sexist. A different culture or a different era, of course. But that doesn't make it any less sexist. Just more understandable.
Besides, even if women HAD been protected from the bullets and bombs, does that justify the rest of the abuse and gender-specific crimes and violations they've been subject to (and still are subject to)?
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-women-salbi (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-women-salbi)
http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/a-decade-of-occupation-for-iraqi-women-862.html (http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/a-decade-of-occupation-for-iraqi-women-862.html)
http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/monitoring-violence-against-women-iraq (http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/monitoring-violence-against-women-iraq)
http://x.dawn.com/2013/04/09/post-conflict-women-iraq-hope-and-violence/ (http://x.dawn.com/2013/04/09/post-conflict-women-iraq-hope-and-violence/)
Looking forward to your response.
-
Ok, I saw in the peanut gallery that people have been asking for facts. And given that you've posted plenty of fucking ESSAY-length replies for me to read, here's some text back for you:
(it's nearly 2am and I have work to do tomorrow so this was pretty rushed , but I have included sources if you want to further research anything yourself. Apologies in advance for any typos etc
Women's inferior status and violence toward women in Iraq :
*****
Rise of so -called "pleasure marriages" (basically, OK-ed prostitution)
This isn't quite the same as "normal" prostitution though. The woman (unsurprisingly) has less of a say in the whole thing than the man does.
1. Married men can enter into it, although married women can't
2. Men can end the contract at any time, the woman can't
3. often the women are threatened or blackmailed into accepting it to avoid rape or violence
This is also related to a massive trafficking problem in Iraq and across the middle east
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm)
*****
Female Genital Mutilation
Practised on girls as young as 4 and involves the removal of the clitoris, but occasionally also the inner and outer labia.
THe very fact that this is done to control women's desires, make them "clean" and make them more attractive to men is enough to show that this is sexist, even when you ignore the actual violence of it:
“She has told me about the terrible pain, how much she bled that night and how ashamed she was to tell her family she was hurting. She couldn’t talk to her mother, because her mother was the one who’d taken her to be cut. She felt alone and scared.” (this is from someone growing up in Kirkuk, Iraq)
Long-term health consequences can result from the procedures, including infection, painful sexual intercourse, psychological trauma, and sterility.
Campaigner against FGM in Iraq - I think this speaks for itself. Clearly this is a society strongly AGAINST what this person is fighting for:
“I’ve had threats via text message, by phone, by letter, on the internet,” she says. “People come up to me in the street and insult me and political parties have issued threats.”
Her offices were broken into in July last year, and insults daubed on the wall. “I can’t really say what was written because it was too obscene. But one of the things written was ‘You should be scared for your lives, watch out’.”
Requests to the police to provide protection have so far been fruitless.
(and before you snipe back with a "not all Iraqi men support FGM", yes, I know that. Iraq =/= all Iraqis. We're talking legally & politically as well as socially.
http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/culture-alone-fails-to-account-for-female-genital-mutilation-420.html (http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/culture-alone-fails-to-account-for-female-genital-mutilation-420.html)
http://www.rferl.org/content/Female_Genital_Mutilation_Said_To_Be_Widespread_In_Iraqs_Irans_Kurdistan/1507621.html (http://www.rferl.org/content/Female_Genital_Mutilation_Said_To_Be_Widespread_In_Iraqs_Irans_Kurdistan/1507621.html)
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fighting-against-female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-8640121.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fighting-against-female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-8640121.html)
http://en.wadi-online.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1041:press-release--female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-study-shows-fgm-common-in-kirkuk&catid=15:presseerklaerungen&Itemid=109 (http://en.wadi-online.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1041:press-release--female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-study-shows-fgm-common-in-kirkuk&catid=15:presseerklaerungen&Itemid=109)
*****
Forced marriages
Yes, forced marriage. Not just "arranged marriages"
These women - sorry, girls, in many cases - have no say.
The rates of forced marriages of under 16s have also increased. This, in turn, can lead to higher rates of death during childbirth, as “girls between 15 and 18 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy and while giving birth than women between the ages of 20 and 24.”
Please don't tell me 14 yer old girls want or understand what they're getting into here. They're being given away by their fathers. At 15? Is that really necessary? Whatever pathetic justifications you try to spin on this ("oh, the father is just thinking, now I will pass you on to a good man who will take care of you"), that is completely ridiculous when we're talking about girls who haven't yet even reached the age of 18. A decent father would keep his children at home wherever possible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/middleeast/more-suicides-in-iraq-region-where-arranged-marriage-is-common.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/middleeast/more-suicides-in-iraq-region-where-arranged-marriage-is-common.html?_r=0)
http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/forced-marriages-of-girls-rise-in-iraq.html (http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/forced-marriages-of-girls-rise-in-iraq.html)
*****
Legal position of women
When Yusra* arrived at one of our shelters, she told a harrowing story of brutal abuse at the hands of her husband and her father. The shelter was the one place she could turn. Under the new constitution, she knew she wouldn’t get justice from the religious courts, where her testimony is worth half of her husband’s and where the laws allow the husband to “discipline” his wife.
That's not sexist? A woman's testimony is worth only half of that of her husband?
They came for Dr Khaula al-Tallal in a white Opel car after she took a taxi home to the middle class district of Qadissiya in Iraq's holy city of Najaf. She worked for the medical committee that examined patients to assess them for welfare benefit. Crucially, however, she was a woman in a country where being a female professional increasingly invites a death sentence.
As al-Tallal, 50, walked towards her house, one of three men in the Opel stepped out and raked her with bullets.
I suppose you'd say that the reason women don't have jobs in Iraq is just to keep them safe in the home right? Safe from the bullets and bombs?
If you really believe that, just becuase women are less likely to be killed by a sniper, they are being kept safe from violence, then have a read of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/08/iraq.peterbeaumont (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/08/iraq.peterbeaumont)
*****
Honor killings and domestic violence
If the women of Iraq are happy with being away from the bombs and the bullets and think it's all fucking great and brilliant, why the need for so many women's shelters and underground railroads to help them flee the country?
A UNICEF survey of adolescent girls aged 15–19, covering the years 2002-2009, asked them if they think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances; 57% responded yes.
In 2011, nearly half of girls aged 10 to 14 were exposed to violence at least once by a family member, and nearly half of married women were exposed to at least one form of spousal violence, mostly emotional, but also physical and sexual, according to a survey by the government and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).
Often ends in death:
2012
a man drenched his three daughters in boiling water and then shot them because he suspected them of having sex. An autopsy later showed they were all virgins. He received a sentence of just two years because of a stipulation in Iraq’s penal code which reduces murder to a maximum of three years in prison if a man surprises his wife or female dependants “in a state of adultery”
Please read that again, Les. Even if that had been an isolated case (hmm...), the fact that he received such a short sentence, the REASON why he received a short sentence, and the very fact that it was even deemed necessary to check if they were virgins afterwards... all this points towards women being the inferior class in Iraq.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-violence-women-iraq-20090420 (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-violence-women-iraq-20090420)
*****
War-related violence
Another "point" you've made is that women are kept safe in their homes away from the dangers of war. Sure, they may be statistically much less likely to be hit by a sniper, but a bomb in a mosque or a market place is pretty indescriminatory, and there's plenty of evidence to show that women WERE direct victims of the war
Yanar Mohammed comes to the following conclusion :
"According to our estimates, no fewer than 30 women were executed by the militias in Bagdad and in the suburbs. During the first ten days of November 2007, more than 150 unclaimed women's corpses, most of them decapitated, mutilated, or having evidence of extreme torture, were processed through the Bagdad morgue."
Anyway, is it REALLY just out of kind-heartedness and a desire to protect the women that they're kept in the kitchen?
Nuha Salim :
"The insurgents and militias do not want us in the professional sphere for various reasons: some because they believe women were born to stay at home - and cook and clean -- and others because they say that it is contrary to Islam that a man and woman should find themselves in the same place if they are not related."
When women;s illiteracy rates are more than double that of the male population, I think it's pretty clear that it's not just to protect the women. It's a cultural thing, yes, but it's a sexist cultural thing. Just as the "separate spheres" of Victorian men and women were sexist. A different culture or a different era, of course. But that doesn't make it any less sexist. Just more understandable.
Besides, even if women HAD been protected from the bullets and bombs, does that justify the rest of the abuse and gender-specific crimes and violations they've been subject to (and still are subject to)?
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-women-salbi (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-women-salbi)
http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/a-decade-of-occupation-for-iraqi-women-862.html (http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/a-decade-of-occupation-for-iraqi-women-862.html)
http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/monitoring-violence-against-women-iraq (http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/monitoring-violence-against-women-iraq)
http://x.dawn.com/2013/04/09/post-conflict-women-iraq-hope-and-violence/ (http://x.dawn.com/2013/04/09/post-conflict-women-iraq-hope-and-violence/)
Looking forward to your response.
OK incoming.
-
*****
Rise of so -called "pleasure marriages" (basically, OK-ed prostitution)
This isn't quite the same as "normal" prostitution though. The woman (unsurprisingly) has less of a say in the whole thing than the man does.
1. Married men can enter into it, although married women can't
2. Men can end the contract at any time, the woman can't
3. often the women are threatened or blackmailed into accepting it to avoid rape or violence
This is also related to a massive trafficking problem in Iraq and across the middle east
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm)
From the same article
"The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a— "ecstasy" in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women.....Women's rights activists are concerned. Salama Al-Khafaji, a Shiite lawmaker who supports the concept of sharia law but advocates for women's rights, calls the re-emergence of muta'a an "unhealthy phenomenon."
With the right intentions, she says, muta'a can serve the noble purpose of helping divorced and widowed women. But too many men are using temporary marriages to exploit women for sex, she says. Her solution is to reinforce the importance of permanent marriages with work programs for newlywed couples and education campaigns."
What are we arguing here? Prostitution is bad? Some women are sometimes exploited? That is isn't sometimes noble as that Iraqi women's rights activist quoted?
Seems like most things, in the best case scenario it is really no issue but at worst it is not a great idea. Like the argument around the porn industry with some women arguing against the whole concept and others supporting women performers rights to make such choices, while the men say "OK whatever...more tits and arse, please."
*****
Female Genital Mutilation
Practised on girls as young as 4 and involves the removal of the clitoris, but occasionally also the inner and outer labia.
THe very fact that this is done to control women's desires, make them "clean" and make them more attractive to men is enough to show that this is sexist, even when you ignore the actual violence of it:
“She has told me about the terrible pain, how much she bled that night and how ashamed she was to tell her family she was hurting. She couldn’t talk to her mother, because her mother was the one who’d taken her to be cut. She felt alone and scared.” (this is from someone growing up in Kirkuk, Iraq)
Long-term health consequences can result from the procedures, including infection, painful sexual intercourse, psychological trauma, and sterility.
Campaigner against FGM in Iraq - I think this speaks for itself. Clearly this is a society strongly AGAINST what this person is fighting for:
“I’ve had threats via text message, by phone, by letter, on the internet,” she says. “People come up to me in the street and insult me and political parties have issued threats.”
Her offices were broken into in July last year, and insults daubed on the wall. “I can’t really say what was written because it was too obscene. But one of the things written was ‘You should be scared for your lives, watch out’.”
Requests to the police to provide protection have so far been fruitless.
(and before you snipe back with a "not all Iraqi men support FGM", yes, I know that. Iraq =/= all Iraqis. We're talking legally & politically as well as socially.
http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/culture-alone-fails-to-account-for-female-genital-mutilation-420.html (http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/culture-alone-fails-to-account-for-female-genital-mutilation-420.html)
http://www.rferl.org/content/Female_Genital_Mutilation_Said_To_Be_Widespread_In_Iraqs_Irans_Kurdistan/1507621.html (http://www.rferl.org/content/Female_Genital_Mutilation_Said_To_Be_Widespread_In_Iraqs_Irans_Kurdistan/1507621.html)
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fighting-against-female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-8640121.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fighting-against-female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-8640121.html)
http://en.wadi-online.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1041:press-release--female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-study-shows-fgm-common-in-kirkuk&catid=15:presseerklaerungen&Itemid=109 (http://en.wadi-online.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1041:press-release--female-genital-mutilation-in-iraq-study-shows-fgm-common-in-kirkuk&catid=15:presseerklaerungen&Itemid=109)
I am supposed to be arguing against barbaric religious practices? Shall I also make a case as to the "sexism" of the Jewish male circumcision? No I do not think many would classify that as sexist? Am I right?
I really don't know that this is sexist. Revolting, cruel, barbaric and demonic, absolutely.
In my view, no normal person could look at a newborn baby and smile and say, "Isn't she/he beautiful? Want to cut some of them off?"
I do not know why you are trying to make a case for me being indifferent to human suffering or saying that if I do not believe something is necessarily sexist that it is a fucking great idea.
Religious ideas are generally dodgy in my view and the worst ones - like this are unjustifiable.
*****
Forced marriages
Yes, forced marriage. Not just "arranged marriages"
These women - sorry, girls, in many cases - have no say.
The rates of forced marriages of under 16s have also increased. This, in turn, can lead to higher rates of death during childbirth, as “girls between 15 and 18 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy and while giving birth than women between the ages of 20 and 24.”
Please don't tell me 14 yer old girls want or understand what they're getting into here. They're being given away by their fathers. At 15? Is that really necessary? Whatever pathetic justifications you try to spin on this ("oh, the father is just thinking, now I will pass you on to a good man who will take care of you"), that is completely ridiculous when we're talking about girls who haven't yet even reached the age of 18. A decent father would keep his children at home wherever possible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/middleeast/more-suicides-in-iraq-region-where-arranged-marriage-is-common.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/middleeast/more-suicides-in-iraq-region-where-arranged-marriage-is-common.html?_r=0)
http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/forced-marriages-of-girls-rise-in-iraq.html (http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/forced-marriages-of-girls-rise-in-iraq.html)
Yay, the joy of the religious fundamentalists. I have not understood the appeal of 15 year old girls. Lit may be able to shed some light on that. Or maybe even your old mate Scrap. Personally I think that is too young to be married off.
I think that in years gone by it may have made sense and I think the religious clerics that drive such initiatives are (and must surely know) driving the culture into the 1800's.
It is actually a good point and I will expand on this in my next post.
*****
Legal position of women
When Yusra* arrived at one of our shelters, she told a harrowing story of brutal abuse at the hands of her husband and her father. The shelter was the one place she could turn. Under the new constitution, she knew she wouldn’t get justice from the religious courts, where her testimony is worth half of her husband’s and where the laws allow the husband to “discipline” his wife.
That's not sexist? A woman's testimony is worth only half of that of her husband?
They came for Dr Khaula al-Tallal in a white Opel car after she took a taxi home to the middle class district of Qadissiya in Iraq's holy city of Najaf. She worked for the medical committee that examined patients to assess them for welfare benefit. Crucially, however, she was a woman in a country where being a female professional increasingly invites a death sentence.
As al-Tallal, 50, walked towards her house, one of three men in the Opel stepped out and raked her with bullets.
I suppose you'd say that the reason women don't have jobs in Iraq is just to keep them safe in the home right? Safe from the bullets and bombs?
If you really believe that, just becuase women are less likely to be killed by a sniper, they are being kept safe from violence, then have a read of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/08/iraq.peterbeaumont (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/08/iraq.peterbeaumont)
I absolutely believe that they are less likely to be killed by sniper. Yes I do have stats to back that in my next post.
I know where the women's testimony being given half the weight of a man's. The reasoning was unless one of the women forgot what happened? :laugh: Shouldn't laugh. I read up about the obligations for women vs men and the benefits and roles and in Islamic faith and from what I could see, they were a real mixed bag. Some like this clear do not favour women, others favour women over men.
What you have to be keenly aware of it that the fundamentalists are not promoting anything but the most extremist and perverse reading of the quran.
*****
Honor killings and domestic violence
If the women of Iraq are happy with being away from the bombs and the bullets and think it's all fucking great and brilliant, why the need for so many women's shelters and underground railroads to help them flee the country?
A UNICEF survey of adolescent girls aged 15–19, covering the years 2002-2009, asked them if they think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances; 57% responded yes.
In 2011, nearly half of girls aged 10 to 14 were exposed to violence at least once by a family member, and nearly half of married women were exposed to at least one form of spousal violence, mostly emotional, but also physical and sexual, according to a survey by the government and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).
Often ends in death:
2012
a man drenched his three daughters in boiling water and then shot them because he suspected them of having sex. An autopsy later showed they were all virgins. He received a sentence of just two years because of a stipulation in Iraq’s penal code which reduces murder to a maximum of three years in prison if a man surprises his wife or female dependants “in a state of adultery”
Please read that again, Les. Even if that had been an isolated case (hmm...), the fact that he received such a short sentence, the REASON why he received a short sentence, and the very fact that it was even deemed necessary to check if they were virgins afterwards... all this points towards women being the inferior class in Iraq.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-violence-women-iraq-20090420 (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/trapped-violence-women-iraq-20090420)
Yes I think that the boiling water thing is an isolated case and better left off what is is a great point.
I will expand on this in my next post.
*****
War-related violence
Another "point" you've made is that women are kept safe in their homes away from the dangers of war. Sure, they may be statistically much less likely to be hit by a sniper, but a bomb in a mosque or a market place is pretty indescriminatory, and there's plenty of evidence to show that women WERE direct victims of the war
Yanar Mohammed comes to the following conclusion :
"According to our estimates, no fewer than 30 women were executed by the militias in Bagdad and in the suburbs. During the first ten days of November 2007, more than 150 unclaimed women's corpses, most of them decapitated, mutilated, or having evidence of extreme torture, were processed through the Bagdad morgue."
Anyway, is it REALLY just out of kind-heartedness and a desire to protect the women that they're kept in the kitchen?
Nuha Salim :
"The insurgents and militias do not want us in the professional sphere for various reasons: some because they believe women were born to stay at home - and cook and clean -- and others because they say that it is contrary to Islam that a man and woman should find themselves in the same place if they are not related."
When women;s illiteracy rates are more than double that of the male population, I think it's pretty clear that it's not just to protect the women. It's a cultural thing, yes, but it's a sexist cultural thing. Just as the "separate spheres" of Victorian men and women were sexist. A different culture or a different era, of course. But that doesn't make it any less sexist. Just more understandable.
Besides, even if women HAD been protected from the bullets and bombs, does that justify the rest of the abuse and gender-specific crimes and violations they've been subject to (and still are subject to)?
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-women-salbi (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-women-salbi)
http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/a-decade-of-occupation-for-iraqi-women-862.html (http://www.madre.org/index/press-room-4/news/a-decade-of-occupation-for-iraqi-women-862.html)
http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/monitoring-violence-against-women-iraq (http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/monitoring-violence-against-women-iraq)
http://x.dawn.com/2013/04/09/post-conflict-women-iraq-hope-and-violence/ (http://x.dawn.com/2013/04/09/post-conflict-women-iraq-hope-and-violence/)
Looking forward to your response.
I don't think this point really has any real strength. But I will respond on the next post.
-
Well I certainly hope your "next post" is a little better, as I've got to say, that was pretty poor.
Anyway...
From the same article
"The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a— "ecstasy" in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women.....Women's rights activists are concerned. Salama Al-Khafaji, a Shiite lawmaker who supports the concept of sharia law but advocates for women's rights, calls the re-emergence of muta'a an "unhealthy phenomenon."
With the right intentions, she says, muta'a can serve the noble purpose of helping divorced and widowed women. But too many men are using temporary marriages to exploit women for sex, she says. Her solution is to reinforce the importance of permanent marriages with work programs for newlywed couples and education campaigns."
What are we arguing here? Prostitution is bad? Some women are sometimes exploited? That is isn't sometimes noble as that Iraqi women's rights activist quoted?
Seems like most things, in the best case scenario it is really no issue but at worst it is not a great idea. Like the argument around the porn industry with some women arguing against the whole concept and others supporting women performers rights to make such choices, while the men say "OK whatever...more tits and arse, please."
Lol, yes I saw that was from the same post. I read it before I quoted it. It's clearly not much of a positive though. And notice the following secntence begins "but..." It's really not that noble now, is it? Do you really think all the men "marrying" these women for a couple hours are doing it for the noble purpose of helping out a war widow? Or could it be to get laid without the religious-shame that would otherwise come along with that? I'm not sure how you're arguing here. Or even if you believe what you're saying yourself.
I am supposed to be arguing against barbaric religious practices? Shall I also make a case as to the "sexism" of the Jewish male circumcision? No I do not think many would classify that as sexist? Am I right?
Cricumcising male children (while I strongly disagree with it myself) is not the same as FGM. And I think you know that as well as I do.
And of course FGM is sexist. It's mainly about controlling women's ability to have/enjoy sex.
It is entirely different to male circumcision and you know that.
Also, remember, this wasn't just about what is technically "sexist." It was originally about the oppression of women in Iraq and the way that they are treated. Even if you disagree that it is sexist, you clearly agree that it is barbaric. So you have to accept that women are being oppressed AS WOMEN in the middle east.
Yay, the joy of the religious fundamentalists. I have not understood the appeal of 15 year old girls. Lit may be able to shed some light on that. Or maybe even your old mate Scrap.
Huh? My mate Scrap? He may have been involved in arguments on here that I was also involved in (again, why are you harking back to 2010? Move on.) but he certainly has never been a friend of mine. In fact, we got on pretty badly iirc. Nevermind though, that clearly has fuck all to do with the callout, so I'll pass over that strange point.
I absolutely believe that they are less likely to be killed by sniper. Yes I do have stats to back that in my next post.
No need. I don't think we've ever been arguing about whether men are more likely to be killed by bullets. Of course they are.
others favour women over men.
Please give me some examples of Iraqi laws that favour women. Thanks in advance
What you have to be keenly aware of it that the fundamentalists are not promoting anything but the most extremist and perverse reading of the quran.
That's lovely, and you've told me that several times already, but it's also irrelevant. Whether they're extremists or not (well, of course they are) they are still "promoting" this oppression of women.
It is actually a good point and I will expand on this in my next post.
Please do.
Yes I think that the boiling water thing is an isolated case and better left off what is is a great point.
I will expand on this in my next post.
I look forward to it.
I don't think this point really has any real strength. But I will respond on the next post.
Given that it;s in response to YOUR main point, I think it's pretty relevant, so I'm glad you will respond when you make the much anticipated "next post"
-
OK My conviction throughout this has been the following,
The society that Iraq has become is nothing less than the socially and culturally regressed and oppressed nation that is at the mercy of a small but controlling collection of tribal and religious fundamentalists and that men and women are equally oppressed in different ways. Men and women in this society are subject to oppression equally but in different ways, and that that regardless of the new religious policies that men and women are victims of this and are forced just to go along with things. The attacks on the come from outside in the form of religious nutbags and their associates not from within their own people.
Now you have shown women being oppressed. Absolutely you have. You have also backed every assertion usually citing pretty bloody good sources.
Here is me backing my assertions
http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/01443/fo_region_iraq.html (http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/01443/fo_region_iraq.html)
"There has been a large significant improvement of women’s lives in Iraq from the 1960s to the early 1980s because of the Ba’ath Party, something that placed Iraq on the forefront of protection of women’s rights in the Middle East before. In 1948, Iraq introduced the first female judge in the Middle East. The improvement of women’s lives was also something that was indicative of the advancement of Iraq’s society as many consider how civilised a community is by how well their women are treated. However, these improvements and the Ba’ath Party’s effort in the history of emancipation of women left little mark as Saddam Hussein’s regime took over in 1979. Saddam Hussein’s governance led to a general deterioration of the protection of human rights. However, things grew worse for the women as the government consolidated its power and controlled the people by collaboration with Islamic extremists and powerful religious tribal leaders."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30saddam.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30saddam.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
"His own conviction that he was destined by God to rule Iraq forever was such that he refused to accept that he would be overthrown in April 2003, even as American tanks penetrated the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, in a war that has become a bitterly contentious, bloody occupation."
There the rot sets in. So according to my premise it was less regressed than this. Saddam was responsible give power and voice to the very people who now carry on his legacy of tyrannical oppression. He was as fundamentalist and religious as the next guy. Probably more.
As for the oppression against women? You make a great case. Here is an interesting tidbit against men. It doesn't seem that their is great data. Hardly surprising.
http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/253.full (http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/253.full)
Reports of sexual violence by men against men emerge from numerous conflicts, ranging in time from Ancient Persia and the Crusades to the conflicts in Iraq and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite these accounts, relatively little material exists on the subject and the issue tends to be relegated to a footnote. This article ascertains the extent to which male sexual violence is committed in armed conflict. It considers factors that explain under-reporting by victims and lack of detection on the part of others. The particular forms of male sexual violence are also examined: namely rape, enforced sterilization and other forms of sexual violence, including enforced nudity, enforced masturbation and genital violence.
http://thinkafricapress.com/gender/invisible-victims-male-rape-great-lakes-drc-congo (http://thinkafricapress.com/gender/invisible-victims-male-rape-great-lakes-drc-congo)
"Much less attention is being paid, however, to male victims of rape.
Male victims
Like women, men are also targeted and suffer sexual violence. This issue, however, has received considerably less publicity and examination. There are also few organisations set up to help male victims, the stigma around men who have been raped remains particularly strong in societies across the world, and the problem receives relatively meagre discussion amongst governments, aid agencies and human rights organisations.
This is perhaps surprising given that sexual violence against men has been documented in conflicts as far and wide as Yugoslavia, Iraq and El Salvador and that it is often widespread. One third of the male combatants in Liberia’s civil war, for example, reported suffering some form of sexual abuse; 21% of the tortured Sri Lankan Tamil males receiving care in London claimed to have experienced sexual violence; and in El Salvador in the 1980s, 76% of male political prisoners were allegedly victims of sexual torture.
There are no reliable statistics on the number of male victims in the DRC and Great Lakes Region as of yet, but whispers that sexual violence is being used against boys and men as well as girls and women are growing louder though the issue remains under-reported and under-examined."
I dunno. it seems that there doesn't seem any real effort to bring attention to this. Why?
I know you tried to make a point to women being exposed to a similar or comparable risk of death and violence.
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/reports/human-cost-war-101106.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/reports/human-cost-war-101106.pdf)
"Age distribution of deaths
Figure 4 shows the age and sex for all deaths in the survey households and those deaths that were reported from violent causes. The first graph shows all deaths. The pattern for females is what would be usual for both males and females, in almost all countries of the world. However, in this graph there is a great excess in deaths among males of all ages in comparison with females. In the next graph is shown the deaths from violent causes by age and sex. As can be seen, violent deaths account for most of the deaths, and violent deaths are almost entirely in males. Among the males, there were no practical survey methods to determine which of the deaths were among active combatants. It is interesting to note that the largest single age group of female deaths was among the under age 15 years."
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/ten-years/ (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/ten-years/)
"Current deaths per year for civilians in Iraq (at between 4 and 5 thousand) are still of the same order as the total number of US and Coalition military killed over the entire 10 year period (now 4,804 according to http://icasualties.org (http://icasualties.org)). Overall there have been 25 Iraqi civilian deaths for every one US and coalition forces death.
Iraqi victims of the war come from all walks of life. IBC was able to determine the occupation of nearly 23,600 victims, covering some 700 professions. By far the greatest number were police who, along with journalists, are also most likely to have their profession mentioned, and hence to have been most completely recorded.
IBC’s documented occupational groupings, and the number of deaths reported for each, include:
10,238 police (excluding paramilitaries)
2,783 neighbourhood and private security
1,605 officials and public sector workers
751 community and religious leaders
288 journalists and media workers
265 medics and health care workers
4 For a detailed account of the demographics of victims and the weapons that killed them, see IBC co-authored articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, PLoS Medicine, and The Lancet
Among slightly more than 50,000 victims about whom IBC could obtain demographic information, men numbered 38,441 (77%), women 4,373 (8.7%), and children 4,191 (8.4%). The weapons that kill women and children tend to be different from those used to kill adult males, who are more often directly or even individually targeted. 4
5 For a review of these incidents up to Oct 2007, see Large bombings claim ever more lives"
What about men bashing women? That partner violence thing that is usually started by sexist blokes bashing wives. We know that the trends are well and truly against the females. Feminists striving for equality have told us that for years.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm)
"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600. "
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf (http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf)
"Graham-Kevan's paper fully documents overwhelming evidence that the "patriarchal dominance" theory of partner violence CPV from here on) explains only a small part of pv. Moreover, more such evidence is rapidly emerging. To take just one recent example, analyses of data from 32 nations in the Intemational Dating Violence Study (Straus, 2007) Straus and International Dating Violence Research Consortium 2004) found about equal perpetration rates and a predominance of mutual violence in all 32 samples, including non- Western nations. Moreover, data from that study also show that, within a couple relationship, domination and control by women occur as often as bv mpn qnd are as strongly associated with perpetration of PV by women as by men (Straus 2007) Graham- Kevan also documents the absence of evidence indicating that the patriarchal dominance approach to prevention and treatment has been effective. In my opinion, it would be even more appropriate to say that what success has been achieved in preventing and treating PV has been achieved despite the handicaps imposed by focusing exclusively on eliminating male-dominance and misogyny, important as that is as an end in itself."
So taking that into account I am prepared to really dispute the
*****
Honor killings and domestic violence
If the women of Iraq are happy with being away from the bombs and the bullets and think it's all fucking great and brilliant, why the need for so many women's shelters and underground railroads to help them flee the country?
A UNICEF survey of adolescent girls aged 15–19, covering the years 2002-2009, asked them if they think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances; 57% responded yes.
In 2011, nearly half of girls aged 10 to 14 were exposed to violence at least once by a family member, and nearly half of married women were exposed to at least one form of spousal violence, mostly emotional, but also physical and sexual, according to a survey by the government and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).
and
Forced marriages
Yes, forced marriage. Not just "arranged marriages"
These women - sorry, girls, in many cases - have no say.
The rates of forced marriages of under 16s have also increased. This, in turn, can lead to higher rates of death during childbirth, as “girls between 15 and 18 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy and while giving birth than women between the ages of 20 and 24.”
Please don't tell me 14 yer old girls want or understand what they're getting into here. They're being given away by their fathers. At 15? Is that really necessary? Whatever pathetic justifications you try to spin on this ("oh, the father is just thinking, now I will pass you on to a good man who will take care of you"), that is completely ridiculous when we're talking about girls who haven't yet even reached the age of 18. A decent father would keep his children at home wherever possible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/middleeast/more-suicides-in-iraq-region-where-arranged-marriage-is-common.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/middleeast/more-suicides-in-iraq-region-where-arranged-marriage-is-common.html?_r=0)
http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/forced-marriages-of-girls-rise-in-iraq.html (http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/forced-marriages-of-girls-rise-in-iraq.html)
Actually I m not.
There are a few reasons for this.
Firstly, I got more bad news today and I am not a happy camper. Not really in the frame of mind to continue this and don't want it hanging over my head.
Secondly, a lot of the issues surrounding men and men rights are pretty much omitted or ignored and it is a LOT harder to sift through to find acceptable morsels. I would normally consider it a challenge. Not now though.
Thirdly, If you see my premise, you will see it makes some bloody reasonable follow on logical assessments. it presumes that men being protectors and the Islamic law charging men with being protectors and provider of women and having spoken at length on such matters with a Muslim Iraqi friend, that I could reasonably assume that this was true. The men by and large were decent (exceptions in any population) that they were getting a bad rap from the violence by supporter of the tribal leaders and religious fundamentalists.
So therefore and given what seems documented about the "equality" of violence by gender in domestic abuse despite efforts to paint men as more violent, we should be able to contest reports. It ought to be able to be dismissed or subject to the same mistrust as other sources that over the years have cited men as the more statistically likely to be the aggressors in a marriage.
But I don't dismiss them. I believe them. I know the organisation and I think it is credible and not likely to be supported by Feminist ideologies. I also think that the numbers simply are too great to ignore.
Fourthly, I don't agree with forced marriages. My mate at work had an arranged marriage and it is working out great. They are very happy and they are expecting child number two. They were arranged young and through the parents and about the same age. They are both very nice. Forced marriages are not like that. I agree there is something rather repellent about it. I a a Father myself an dI could not imagine putting my daughter on a chopping block like that.
That is not protecting. It is not Fatherly.
Even in that there MAY STILL be a point to it all if it was 1600 or even 1800. It isn't. I can not really justify it.
Adam I won't agree with you in everything. I do not think you are right with everything. But part of what my premise demanded from the outset is that the genders were oppressed from without and when I see the men (yes the Iraqui men in pretty bad percentages) as perpetrators against women, it is rather sad and demoralising. It is worse too that the very laws their faith demands are cast aside in favour of tribal wishes. The decent men there seem in rather small minorities. Maybe all the good ones were killed or have left like my friend.
I do not feel that this will really be resolved. I could argue over points and make a case for misrepresentations and lack of reporting on male oppression and such. My heart is not in it though.
Happy to finish things here. You want to call it a win for you that is fine. I did find those articles interesting.
-
Just skimmed through most of that as it's still the middle of the day here, but I will read it properly later.
I agree with the last couple of paragraphs though and am happy to end it (although I may respond to any points you made against what I said when I read through your post properly later, as it would be irresponsible of me to ignore them if I feel they warrant a response)
Also I hope the bad news isn't related to your daughter's accident and wish her the best in her recovery!
-
Actually I won't bother coming back against any of it as that would just be continuing the whole thing and I think I've made my points clear anyway, so happy to call it over
-
Just skimmed through most of that as it's still the middle of the day here, but I will read it properly later.
I agree with the last couple of paragraphs though and am happy to end it (although I may respond to any points you made against what I said when I read through your post properly later, as it would be irresponsible of me to ignore them if I feel they warrant a response)
Also I hope the bad news isn't related to your daughter's accident and wish her the best in her recovery!
Thanks Adam, its okay, she will be ok. It was different shit to do with her. Don't really want to go into it. Before anyone asks, no she is not pregnant.
You asked for some rights women have vested in them from their gender
he Qur'an also abolished the practice whereby inheritance went to only the oldest male heir. Instead, a woman can inherit from her father, her husband, and her childless brother (see Qur'an 4:7, 32, 176).
In Islam when a woman gets married she does not surrender her maiden name, but maintains her distinct identity. Some Muslim women have adopted the surnames of their husbands, but this is due to cultural influence, not Islam.
In a Muslim marriage the groom gives a dowry to the bride, not to her father. This becomes her private property to keep or spend, and is not subject to the dictates of her male relatives. Any money she earns or receives is similarly her very own.
Under Islamic Law a woman cannot be married without her consent. She has final approval on a marriage partner and she can repudiate a marriage arranged without her consent. She also has the right to initiate a separation from marriage if her rights under marriage are not being granted. Widows have the right to remarry, and they are in fact encouraged to do so.
The Qur'an places on men the responsibility of protecting and maintaining their female relatives. This relieves women of the need to earn their own living. It also means that a man must provide for his wife even if she has money of her own. She is not obligated to spend her money in the maintenance of her family. Incidentally, a woman is also not required to cook for her family, although she may do so out of love and compassion. The example of our noble prophet, on whom be peace, is that although he was such a great leader, he assisted in the housecleaning and mended his own clothes.
In return for the added responsibility, the Qur'an gives men the degree of leadership (see Qur'an 2:228; 4:34). This does not mean that men should dominate women, but rather that they should deal with them in kindness, mercy, and love (see Qur'an 4:19; 30:21).
You see a lot of these things are not followed by the fundamentalists or tribal leaders, The most fervently religious tend not to I find.
No this is not to argue a point. It is because you asked to see it
-
Worried about her and still in hospital. Been with her all night. She is sleeping now.
I won't lie, I am pretty shattered. Can't contribute to debate today, overtired, under slept and fucking worried and stressed. I just hope my baby is ok.
I hope so too. It's good that you are with her. :hug:
-
Worried about her and still in hospital. Been with her all night. She is sleeping now.
I won't lie, I am pretty shattered. Can't contribute to debate today, overtired, under slept and fucking worried and stressed. I just hope my baby is ok.
I hope so too. It's good that you are with her. :hug:
You're posting in the callout. :hahaha:
-
Worried about her and still in hospital. Been with her all night. She is sleeping now.
I won't lie, I am pretty shattered. Can't contribute to debate today, overtired, under slept and fucking worried and stressed. I just hope my baby is ok.
I hope so too. It's good that you are with her. :hug:
You're posting in the callout. :hahaha:
So are you :hahaha:
-
And so am I. :zoinks: