No need for grunt work? *Societal Roles*

In fact women have almost always done most of the heavy lifting - carrying a 4-year old for miles is heavy lifting. Also, carrying water.The breakdown between men and women is not based on physical strength, it is based on "inside" and "outside" roles, inasmuch as it is based on anything other than coercion.Undoubtedly, the raw total strength capacity of an abstract male is higher than that of an abstract female. There are some few cases in which this is a critical issue, but not many. And in any case, as Mick pointed out, why not then set achievement requirements? Ironically in the case of armies, thats more or less how it used to work in regard female combatants.

Well, I would go rather further than Troy and speculate that sexism is a) at base, simply acquisative behaviour, and b) rather more profoundly interventionist than just a chnage in perceptions.The rise in farming doesn't just bring men inside; it changes the nature of "outside" work. Outside work is mostly animal related; thus, mostly men took over herding domesticated animals, which otherwise is often a female role. The domestication of animals is in every practical sense a technology of 'brain-washing', or at least response conditioning. And it was this technology that men subseuqntly applied as a controlling force to women. And the motive for doing is to overcome the female "dominance" of these societies, and thus laying claim to the material benefits such a superordinate position offers, of course, control of women sexuality.And I think this is echoed in many early mythologies in which a male deity ritually supercedes a female deity; for example, the Aztech god Quetzalcoatl, IIRC, birthed himself by cutting his way out of his mothers womb. Thus, the female genitive power is subordinated to male genitive power in the ritual construction of tribal identity.

What women have that men don't is clear lines of inheritance - every person knows their mother, but as the saying goes, its a wise man who knows his father. When men exercise control over womens sexuality, they thereby acquire linear heredity on the male side which hitherto had not existed. This is underlined by the tradition of the bride taking the grooms family name.

quote:

---

I agree although I don't really like the way you have described this belief. This is what a society once believed was true, and something that connected them spiritually. Analyzing it like that, is sort of a dishonor to another's religion.

---

But, religion is not worthy of honour, you see, so I am free to dishonour it.Because I don't look at these myths as accounts of divine adventures, they must have some other purpose - something that serves to unite their society and render thr world explicable. This is a tale about the true and natural order of the world; it establishes a norm. It is, thus, a form of social engineering. As are all mythologies, and later, religions.This message has been edited by contracycle, 05-03-2005 05:42 AM

quote:

---

i would argue that you have no idea what heavy lifting is if you think that four year olds and a few gallons of water are the heaviest things in the world. another product of today's lazy society.

---

Reduced to objecting for objecting's sake, Brenna? Did I ever claim that four year olds were the heaviest thing in the world? No I didn't.Secondly, four year olds can walk, but four year olds simply cannot walk 20km/day. And as we have spent much more time as nomads than we have has settled agriculturalists, thats a significant factor.

quote:

---

mind your manners and respect the beliefs of the dead.

---

the dead are dead and care about nothing. Only some living people affect concern for them, as you do here.

quote:

---

if you don't hold them, fine. but people -who are just as important as you- did. when you dishonour another, you dishonour yourself.

---

Thats empty sophistry. Tell me Brenna, do you also honour Nazism in the name of dead Nazi's? I suspect that you don't. I could point here to the incredible levels of bloodthirst in mesoamerican religion to make a moral point, but will not: there is still no basis for the absurd statement that if I dishonour the dead I dishonour myself.That is at absolute best gross romanticism, and is certainly completely groundless.

quote:

---

iu swear. someday all those crazy feminists are gonna put all the religious people in chains along with the men

---

Yes, clap the crazy feminists in irons, and the abolitionists too, we all know this democracy thing is only the subordination of the righteous to the unthinking mob.

quote:

---

and everyone knows that i ascribe to quite a romanticized everything. call me an ideologue. and what is so groundless about considering that other people make up their minds about things for a reason and not simply because they aren't as intelligent as you?

---

And yet, I actually provided a reason, didn't I? Control of heritibility and material goods. Discussing the change to mythology only indicates how it was implemented.But all your baseless ranting about the evils of feminism never grants anyone such respect, does it? They're just "crazy broads" according to you.

quote:

---

oh come off it. i'm just saying that all these crazy broads are screaming about how awful hierarchy is when all they intend is to reverse it and put themselves on top. it's hypocrisy and it makes me nauseated.

---

And its a ridiculous, hysterical, nonsensensicle, misogynist stereotype. Rather like those who argued that the abolition of slavery would trigger a race war and the extinction of whites, if they ever raised the civilising jackboot from the necks of the barbarians.Have you read the links that Schraf provided? About observed matricarchal - or more properly, matrifocal - societies as they actually exist rather than this absurd conspiracy theory? Frex:

quote:

---

Among the Tuareg, women enjoy freedom of choice in sexual involvement and actively pursue romantic preferences. They may have male visitors when their husbands are absent. Women also retain custody of their children after divorce. Children are the financial responsibility of their fathers but they are considered by nature and by custom as belonging to their mothers. The tents and their furnishings are the personal property of the women. When a woman wants a divorce, she takes her bed (the only bed in the tent) to her mother's place. If she is real serious, she takes the tent as well and the husband has no place where to sleep, he must find shelter with his mother.

---

These hysterical horror storties you giove us of feminists wanting exactly the same degree of control over property and sexuality are simply without historical precedent. Matrifocal societies are nowhere near as controlling as pagtricarchal socities, and no feminist I've ever heard of has advocated such controls.So where do you get your paranoia from, Brenna? I have asked you for citations demonstrating that feminists have indeed made such claims on previous occassions and you have never presented any. Your are grossly misrepresenting feminism, and doing so in order to discredit it. Show your sources or retract this victim-culture nonsense.This message has been edited by contracycle, 05-03-2005 10:51 AM

quote:

---

guess what. not everyone who reads the same things as you jumps to the same conclusions you do.

---

Indeed. Some people only read for the purpose of reinforcing their prejudices.

quote:

---

i don't care how "not opressive" matriarchal societies are, it's still leadership by one sex. it's still a hierarchy, and it's still hypocritical and wrong. and frankly, i think abandoning a man and leaving him without a home is pretty opressive. and that's beside the fact that i don't think sexual freedom for anyone (as you describe it) is a good thing. but then i'm probably the only non fundie who thinks that.

---

Really, OPPRESSIVE? Do you even know what the term "oppressive" means? Becuase you seem to be conflating it with mere nastyness. Is he prevented from building his own tent? Does he got ostracised as a moral failure as female divorcees often are?All you're doing is simplistically asserting "its not perfect so its just as bad." But it is not JUST AS BAD. Men are not obliged to conceal their sexuality for fear of provoking women. Men are not held captive in the home as personal servants of their wives. Men are not likely to be kidnapped by the women of the next village. Men are NOT chattels.For all that you can indeed see the inequality of the plaintive cry that the father contributes to the raising of the children but the mother gets all the credit. But nobody has proposed imposing such a system. Certainly, nobody has proposed imposing a system as violent as patriarchy.

quote:

---

moreover, i'd argue that your discussion of the evils of patriarchal societies are exaggerated. while i really don't feel like bothering to find it, i'm sure there are examples of patriarchal societies which are even less opressive than your dear little pet nations of matriarchs.

---

Yes, well that's unsurprising, as not bothering to find out is the hallmark of your argumentation. I've never come across a patriarchal society that is less coercive than these matrifocal focal societies. But this is of course no impediment to your self-serving assumptions.

quote:

---

oh yes. and these crazy broads? i don't afford them any respect because they're all alive. except, i'm sure, there were some killed at kent state or some other protest and maybe some who did too much drugs during the late sixties and early seventies. you know. just like everyone else.

---

And who are they? As you admit, you cannot be bothered to investigate evidence you even expect to find, let alone disconfirming evidence. I Do these people actually exist, or do you just assume they exist? WHO are you criticising? I have challengedyou to name names and show that your crticisisms are even remotely on target and you are consistently unable to do so. Its a complete nonsense; you simply don;t know what you are talking about, but nevertheless feel entitled to behave like a spoiled child when contradicted.

quote:

---

i'm tired of your self-righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with you. i hate everyone. you only hate people who call you on your hypocrisy.

---

Hang on Brenna, I was having a perfectly reasonable conversation here until you decided yto object. Calling on you to support your objection is not hypocrisy. On the other hand, it most certainly IS hypocrticial to keep denouncing feminism despite clearly being unable to support your own claims about it.I most certainly do not condemn anyone who disagrees with me - after all, people who merely disagree with me may stand to be persuaded. But people who make sweeping and false generalisations they then run away from supporting are indeed worthy of my condemnation.Make reasonable arguments and you will gain my respect. Continue with this ignorant objectionism and you will continue to enjoy my contempt. At no point have you contributed anything of value to this thread, only sailed up and fired a broadside about people, probably fictional, you affect to dislike.

quote:

---

all i said was that claiming that women are the ones that have always done the heavy lifting was a stupid remark

---

What I said was, the sexual division is not BASED on heavy lifting, and that women do a hell of a lot of lifting that is real serious work. It is of course true that if you need a stone lifted, a group of young men is your best bet, but if that is all they do in the day, while women spend the whole day pounding grain, carrying water, hefting kids and so forth, then they indeed are doing the majority of the muscle based labour.But of course such thoughts do not enter your head. No, you must leap the most ridiculous possible assumption and then attack that straw man. Don't talk about me "going off" off on you when your only intervention in this thread was to attack a nonsense of your own construction.

quote:

---

and then you went off on me. leave me alone i don't care to prove to you the fact that i find your ideas to be wrong because i'm simply not interested in discussing it anymore ever.

---

Yes, I'm quite aware you don;t want to discuss it again ever - thats becuase you are never able to support your claims, and get annoyed when your comfortable prejudices are challenged. And rather than take responsibility for this solvable problem, and solve it by actually learning about the topic, you prefer to disapear in a puff of pique. I'm not much impressed.

quote:

---

i don't have to prove to you my thought process or how much i read or anything.

---

Well you most certainly DO if you are going to go around makling abusive and insulting remarks about feminists and feminism. It is absolutely incumbent on you to demonstrate that those remarks have some basis in fact - otherwise they are nothing more than slander. Deliberate misrepresentation. Character assasination. Why should you be allowed to make such abusive claims and then simply deny the responsibility to show they have any basis at all?IMO, you do NOT appear to be at all well educated about Feminism. You have attacked feminists on these grounds on multiple occassions and in not a single instance have you ever been able to to demonstrate that any feminist has ever advanced any such claims. I say you suck your "research" out of your thumb. But thats impossible to DISCUSS because as soon as you are contradicted you throw a temper tantrum; it seems to me you do everything in your power to avoid having to actually support the nonsense you spout.

quote:

---

You do realize that by calling Brennakimi "hysterical" you are using a sexist, female-bashing term, don't you?

---

Christ thats embarrasing Scraf. No of course it isn't.Claiming, or assuming, that women, as a collective, are hysterical as a property of their weak feminine brains, is indeed sexist. Accusing an individual of acting hysterically is entirely appropriate and permissable.And you should know this, becuase you should know, it is not about the words, it is about the message conveyed in the words. At no point have I ever attacked Brenna, or you, or indeed anyone, on the basis of their gender. Not ever. I challenge you to show any circumstance in which I have done so, supremely confident you will find none.And because you should know this, raising this objection here and now is beneath you; you must have known it was spurious. It was merely malicious.

Yes thats nice Schraf. Unfortuntely, it falls fould of my standing criticism of dictionaries - dictionaries must priovide all meanings attached to words, and do not much discuss appropriate circumstances.In order to make your argument you have resorted to the term as used to describe a medical pathology; unfortuinately this ignores the common usage of the term:1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause."Behaviour exhibiting excessive or uncontrolled emotion" is a precisely accurate description of Brennas baseless and unsupportable ranting.And the real irony is that in attmepting to construct this spurious argument, you are committing the very sin which Brenna rails against, which includes being hypersensitive over alleged discrimination in ordinary speech. But of course, and this is the reason its ironic, its because you have suspended your normal critical faculties in your haste to launch an attack on me, haven't you? You certainly know that normal use of the perfectly serviceable English word "hysteria" cannot be sexist unless I make gender an issue in the claim - and I certainly did no such thing.Asking Brenna to show her sources is NOT such an absurd request that you should feel the need to ride to her rescue. And overall debate would be much improved if instead of tolerating these drive-by posters and protecting them from serious questions, you instead insisted they DO defend their positions with evidence.

quote:

---

I demand that the moderators address this sexism!

---

Self-parody as argument? An... interesting... tactic.