Also, judging by your lack of acknowledgement, I am assuming you want to pass on discussing Disposable Male Theory? Wise decision.
If you want to show that women were “oppressed” and you want to make an honest case, then you need to show that women were oppressed relative to men. If I say for example that African men were oppressed during slavery in the Americas I am being dishonest. My statement is true, but it is only half the truth because it contains the false implication that African women were not oppressed.
Oppression is subjective and it is relative and it must be taken in the context of the time. As men and women in most societies had different rights responsibilities and obligations and as their lives and freedoms were limited in different ways, it is very difficult to make a clear case either way, but to simply keep giving examples of how women were discriminated against while ignoring the often even harsher ways in which men were discriminated against, is transparently dishonest.
I HAVE clearly shown you how women were far more oppressed than men in the Roman era. If you would like to extend our debate to other cultures, then I would be more than happy to point out more examples throughout history. Let me know if you want to do that in the next post. The reality is that you have not shown how MEN were oppressed to anywhere near the degree of women. Your only argument seems to be about the fact that many men (only land-owners throughout most of their history) were forced to join the Legions and I have pointed out the flaws in using that particular argument.
The reality is that for most of human history, most people were oppressed and most people had very few freedoms or rights. And it didn’t really make any difference to the vast majority of people whether there was a King or a Queen sitting on the throne.
And yet, some groups were oppressed far more than others. Women were more oppressed than men, blacks were more oppressed than whites, etc....
Most ordinary people struggled together, dividing up the labour according to their own strengths and weaknesses. This was not oppression. This was just survival. And most cultures developed laws and customs which were designed to facilitate the security and advancement of that society, and those expectations and customs were generally driven by biological limitations and imperatives rather than any kind of male conspiracy to oppress women.
Then tell me, how does not letting women vote help the security and advancement of a nation? This should be interesting.
I didn’t address it because it is irrelevant. The guardianship of a male imposed restrictions on both the male and the female and generally imposed most of the legal and societal obligation onto the male.
So let me get this straight. A women is treated like a child and is forced to give control of her life over to a male and yet you claim the restrictions were actually on the male? Please explain your reasoning for such a ridiculous statement.
What I said was that while I was aware of the various sub-categories of the different citizen groupings I was not going to go into a long tangent about it. The fact remains that all Cives Romani were Roman citizens by definition and therefore had certain rights that were granted to Roman citizens. I never said, implied or suggested that all Roman citizens had the same rights. It is quite self-evident just from the fact that there were different levels of citizenship, that not all citizens had the same rights. I was quite clear about that.
No, this is what you said, "Women of Roman bloodlines, born south of the Rubicon and north of Sicily were Cives Romani; the highest class of citizen."
Considering the context of what we were discussing, this implied that some women were members of the highest class of citizens. However, as I pointed out, that is only a half-truth. You purposely neglected to mention that women among the Cives Romani were given a status lesser than their male counterparts, which was my entire point.
"You use one speech from one famous Roman to discount the recorded scholarship of Roman law."
No, I used actual Roman laws and the speech to discount your revisionist interpretation of Roman law, which I will discuss again below.
Here is a link to the “twelve tables,” Which were the basis for much Roman and later the foundation for much European law. They are quite clear although they are not complete. Murder, of any citizen was against the law and punishable by death. Women could divorce their husbands if they could present grounds. Men also had to present grounds for a divorce. The penalty for adultery was divorce, disgrace, the loss of any special privileges that might have come with the marriage, and the loss of assets. It was not the death penalty.
First of all, yes, the Twelve Tables were a basis for Roman law. You are right about that one. The problem is that those laws were constantly evolving throughout the Roman era. Sometimes for the better and sometimes not. For example, in 445BC the Lex Canuleia was implemented, which changed the law regarding the intermarriage of different classes that were previous set by the Twelve Tables. This was a positive step forward for roman society. Unfortunately, there were many negative ones as well, such as the Lex Julia (18-17BC), which introduced the law allowing a husband to kill his wife and a father to kill his daughter. This is a fact and your narrow focus on the Twelve Tables while ignoring the rest of Roman law isn't going to change that. The Lex Julia existed, as did the other laws I mentioned. It is a historical fact.
There was no law as far as I know against women drinking wine although I imagine that drunkenness would have been deeply frowned upon especially in women. Having said that, the remains of female customers have been found scorched into the earth in wine taverns in Pompeii. I don’t claim to know how much or little Roman society tolerated women drinking. I don’t care. I can find no evidence anywhere that is was legal or even considered acceptable to kill a woman for drinking wine though.
I pointed out the specific law multiple times already, along with sources from historical scholars.
Just so you don’t get confused, I am not suggesting Roman citizens never got murdered, just that it was not considered acceptable behaviour to go around murdering your fellow citizens even if you were married to them. It was not considered murder to kill a child though, because a child was considered a possession not a citizen. I don’t remember what the age limit was on this and I can’t be bothered to look it up now because like most of this argument, it is completely irrelevant to the debate on feminism. I also know that later law brought in strict punishments for infanticide but again the details on that are irrelevant.
But earlier you said a father couldn't kill his daughter... So which is it? Could fathers kill their children or not? Also, this is entirely relevant to the issue of feminism because our debate is about how women were oppressed in Roman society. This is an example of how men held far more power over women.
Oh look I am getting really bored with this hair-splitting dishonesty. I clearly compared the axillaries to the modern-day French Foreign Legion. They were non-Romans who fought in the service of Rome, under Roman command and authority, and who could acquire Roman citizenship if they proved loyalty and survived to complete their service. By any realistic definition the axillaries were an integral part of the Roman military. Auxiliaries were by no means all volunteers. Many were pressed into service by their own rulers and handed over to Rome in the form of tribute or as part of a treaty deal. Rome also ran what amounted to a massive protection racket.
I clearly pointed out that only certain men (land-owners) were conscripted, not the majority of men.
Your argument was that women were not allowed to be full citizens who could vote because voting was tied to military service but to join the military you had to be a full citizen who could vote. Essentially, women were stuck in this Catch 22 situation. When the Constitutio Antoniniana was implemented, that did not change the situation at all. it only gave more women throughout the land the chance to become a lesser citizen like others. They weren't suddenly allowed to vote for join any part of the military. And only land-owning men were pressed into service in the Legions. very few male roman citizens were forced to join the auxillieries I am not even sure what argument you were trying to make here.
Women were not “barred” so much as afforded the privilege of not being required to do any military service.
LOL Yeah, like all the other "privileges" they had, such as not being able to vote and essentially being property of a male. This reminds me of that scene from the Princess Bride. "I don't think that word means what you think it means!"
I suppose you are going to tell me that women were oppressed by not being allowed to get themselves blown to bits in the trenches during WWI? Is there any hardship or horror that feminists will not try to frame as a privilege when it only applies to men?
As a matter of fact, yes. There have always been women who want to fight for their homeland and freedom just like men. The fact that they are not allowed to because they are women is indeed oppression. If you have special restrictions placed on you by another group, then you are oppressed.
But your framing of women being "barred" from joining the military as if this constituted some kind of denial of some valuable privilege and therefore some from of misogyny based oppression, is a beautiful example of entrenched feminist double standards. There is no doubt that if women but not men were forced into armies, feminists would be howling about gender oppression based on that. And for once they would be right.
This is another baseless assumption. We aren't talking about opinions about what may or may not happen in an alternate reality, we are discussing historical facts.
Yawn. I never said that all men were forced into service, just that many were and most must have been aware that they had an obligation if required. Most still are. Most soldiers were conscripts and most were not land-owners. Most Romans were not land-owners. In fact at some periods, part of a soldiers retirement pay came in the form of a plot of land. Check your own sources for that if you wish. You seem to be the one doing all the cherry-picking here and its getting really tiresome. I am not trawling the internet for sources to prove the common historical knowledge that poor Romans could be conscripted into the military, that auxiliaries were often pressed into service too or that Roman legions had a tendency to build roads and forts. Should I also provide links to prove that leather sandals were a common form of footwear in ancient Italy? The patriarchy invented them to oppress women apparently.
You agree that most of the Roman legionaries were conscripted. You claim later on that this was not oppression because most men wanted to join the army? Really? They wanted to sell twenty years of their short lives in exchange for misery brutality and miserable pay? How do you know? Did you ask them? Or did you “learn” this in gender-studies? Could you please explain to me then, if they “wanted” to join, why the Roman army needed to conscript them?
I never said it wasn't oppression even if most men felt it was their duty to join. The problem is that it is the ONLY example of any type of oppression against men and it only applied to certain men. Meanwhile there are tons of examples of oppression against women (by men) and they applied to women as a whole. These situations are nowhere near equal in terms of how badly a group is oppressed.
But you alone appear to be privy to some long lost knowledge that the Roman men were all clamouring to join an army that was made up mostly of conscripts. Maybe you have found some ancient dairies detailing the experiences of Roman soldiers, who no doubt enjoyed the gruelling work details, the starvation rations, the ferocious outbursts of blood-letting and savagery, the frequent beatings and the constant fear of the consequences of displeasing ruthless commanders who had the power of life and death over you.
Clearly, you haven't studied the mentality of the people of ancient Greece and Rome regarding war. The glorification of battle and even dying in combat was an integral part of a young Roman boy's life and education. It was an important part of society in general. In case you were not aware, the Romans were a very warlike society, whether it was their armies clashing on the battlefield or the blood-thirty masses enjoying some gladitorial combat.
Also, your comment about the rations shows that you really need to do more research. The fact that they survived on mostly wheat rations alone was a point of pride for the Roman Legions.
I don't know why I am bothering to post more sources since you clearly have no interest in doing so yourself but I will anyway.
Sources:
The Complete Roman Army - Adrian Goldsworthy
Online Sources:
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/becoming.html
http://www.heritagedaily.com/2012/03/the-gladiatorial-eagles-roman-heroism-and-single-combat-on-early-battlefields-part-one-beginnings/27878
Your own attitude to conscription is irrelevant. This discussion is not about you. The point is that you are trying to suggest that most human societies throughout most of human history oppressed women while you ignore the oppression that societies inflicted upon men or even paint it as some kind of privilege. That is the point you keep wilfully ignoring. Feminists not only seem to turn a blind eye to privilege when women benefit from it, especially in the form of conscription for men. In fact early feminists in England actively campaigned for the introduction of conscription into the military (for men only of course.)
Actually, it isn't irrelevant when you specifically ASKED ME if I thought it was oppression. You asked for my opinion and then say it is irrelevant when I give it to you? lol No, I have not ignored any oppression against men in various societies, my point is that women have historically faced far more oppression than any other group of people in history. THAT IS MY POINT. Nothing more and nothing less. You are the one attempting to dismiss oppression against women as "privileges" rather than admitting that women have been oppressed.
But while military conscription for men was just the worst sort of systemic gender based oppression they would face; it was not the only one. For those not sent to the trenches, a life underground was another option, hacking away at the coal-face for 12 hours a day, six days a week until finally coughing your last breath into the blackness at the age of about forty. And that was if you survived that long. Men did all of the heaviest and most dangerous work. The working class male population were little more than disposable utilities who were still legally obliged to provide for their wives and families. Life for most women was tough too, but not quite that tough.
Okay, I actually had to do some research into this one. If you are referring to people forced to work in the coal mines as slaves, then while the majority were men, female salves were working the mines as well. Much like they were working alongside the male slaves in the fields.
Sources:
Slavery in the American Mountain South - Wilma Dunaway
Daughters of the Mountain - Suzanne E. Tallichet
I really have no idea what you mean by this and I’m betting you don’t either. Nobody is suggesting that men were oppressed by women or that they were oppressed by themselves??? Most people were usually oppressed by the elites that ruled over them; elites that consisted of a tiny proportion of the population and who didn’t care too much for the rights and freedoms of the ordinary people whether male or female.
Yes, I was asking you if you think men were oppressing themselves as a gender. You see, the fundamental difference between men and women in terms of discrimination is that men have never been oppressed as a gender at any point in human history. Women, on the other hand, have frequently been oppressed as gender by men. This is what you can't seem to grasp. The "elites" in most societies oppress everyone, not just men or women. However, its men who oppress women as a whole and this is the argument that you just can't avoid.
You display a typically feminist lack of knowledge of the basic biological imperatives that drive all human cultures here. One important point is that men do not have a evolutionary own group preference. In fact they evolved to see women as more worthy of protection and safety than men, which is why the overwhelming majority of violence in the world is male on male. Or biological drives are far more relevant to this discussion that your unconvincing meanderings about whether or not the risk of dying in childbirth was somehow worse than the risk of being slaughtered in battle.
Typically feminist? Ah, here is another one of those sweeping generalizations that you are so fond of in your comments. Okay, I will ask you this question rather than just assume. Are you suggesting that the oppression of women is acceptable as side-effect of the biological drives of men? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that their oppression of women is based solely on a desire to "protect" women; does it make it okay to deny women a right to vote, work outside the home, get an education, etc? So what if I told you that some racists believe that black people were better off during the slavery era and that white people supposedly treated slaves well. Couldn't one argue that maybe white people were "protecting" black people by oppressing them? After all, it supposedly make their lives better according to some racists. This whole concept of "Positive Oppression" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
No you don’t need to point that out. It goes without saying, although, given your penchant for focussing on splitting hairs, I probably should have spelled that out in capitals. It is not disputed. Once again you argue with yourself.
Then why bring it up in the first place?
Another of feminisms very favourite straw men: Nobody is claiming they were equal citizens. Men and women have not been equal citizens in most human societies. I have never heard even the staunchest MRA claiming that women and men had equal rights until the modern era. But that does not mean that women always got the short end of the stick. It was very often men that got the worst deal in many ways. That is my point and it is the point you keep avoiding.
And yet you have provided no evidence other than the fact that men were sometimes conscripted into battle while forbidding women from joining. This has been your entire argument to support the idea that men have been more oppressed than women. LOL I have refuted it multiple times now as a deeply flawed argument. Can you tell me any other way that men were oppressed more than women? Preferably something where women actually had a voice in the matter. lol
”Certainly! Its cute that you are continuing to be dishonest by claiming that there was no law preventing women from getting an education, as if you somehow are not aware that custom was just as strong as any law. Are you seriously going to sit there and claim to have studied this subject for 15 years while asserting that education was just as freely available to women as men? All historical evidence paints quite a different picture. Both male and female children were educated by the mother up until the age of seven, at which point the boy would continue with teachers but the girl's education was ended to prepare her for marriage. Furthermore, the girl's education was limited to certain subjects, as I mentioned earlier. This was the custom throughout most of the Roman era. Yes, later on upper-class women were eventually allowed better educations but this doesn't negate the fact that women were barely educated before that time.”
I said there was no law against it because you implied that there was. I also said that boys and girls were educated differently to prepare themselves for the gender roles they would be expected to fill. My analysis on Roman education was almost identical you yours. Once again you argue with yourself and once again I am getting bored with this foolishness.
No, I did NOT imply there was a law. I said that women were forced into these situations but that does not imply it had to be a law. As I pointed out, custom is much stronger than any law. Educated differently? Yes, a boy could continue his education and learn about a variety of subjects, while the girl was limited to learning about Roman culture and domestic duties. So to say that they were educated differently is the understatement of the century and yet another dishonest attempt to try to imply that thing were "equal but different" regarding men and women.
”Except in many cultures even the elite girls were not allowed an education. There have been quite a few cultures that didn't allow girls any kind of formal education through either law or custom. Some still existed in recent history, such as the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.”
Actually most of those cultures don’t allow boys a formal education either. In Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan, boys were forced into Islamic Madrasas. This is not an education by any stretch of the imagination. Boys are also often made to serve as soldiers; something that almost never happens to girls. Even in the most repressive societies where women’s lives are miserable, life for men is often even worse on some ways. Men make up the vast majority of victims of torture, slavery and violence all over the world and they always have. Once again you see discrimination against women, but you are completely blind to the often harsher treatment of men.
Seriously? You are even going to suggest that men's lives were worse than women's under control of the Taliban? Wow, I am utterly speechless. As for as education is concerned, while the Taliban did limit what could be taught in school and watered-down subjects like science, boys were not forbidden from going to school. Girls were forbidden entirely. Yes, men were once again sometimes pressed into joining the military. Meanwhile women were prisoners in their own homes and couldn't leave without having a male with her. And if she dared to not be covered from head to toe, she would be severely beaten by the morality police. Women were also banned from the workforce. If you were seriously ill you could forget about going to the hospital because male doctors were no longer allowed to treat women and of course, women couldn't get an education so the number of female doctors providing underground services was constantly decreasing.
Your biggest problem is that you don't seem to be able to see distinctions between different actions. If a society prevents a male from owning more than one car and prohibits women from driving entirely, you would probably view them as equally negative for each gender. lol
And please spare me the worn out feminist argument that men rule societies. The men who are being tortured and exploited and abused don’t rule anything; and in countries and cultures ruled over by powerful female rulers, the situation was no different.
Men have traditionally ruled most societies. This is a historical fact. How about you actually show me some evidence for once? Show me all of these societies throughout history where men were not the dominant gender and women were subordinate. Let's discuss them.
Ok I have had enough of this. I have wasted almost an hour on this already and you have not yet addressed even one of my points. Every single argument you have made so far is based on things that I didn’t say. I am familiar with one common American expression though – “filibuster,” I think it sums up what you are trying to do here; force me to waste my time splitting hairs over irrelevant details, like whether or not an auxiliary formation was technically part of the Roman military; or that you can avoid addressing the argument about feminism.
I addressed all of your points as far as I am aware. Point me to a specific argument of yours (quote it) that I didn't respond to in any of my posts. And I should also point out that you provided ZERO sources for any of your arguments after asking me to cite my sources. How about you actually show me a shred of evidence to support any of your arguments.
"Now please try to address the points I actually did make, all of which you completely ignored. If you can do this then I will be happy to address the rest of yours, especially your laughable claim that feminist ideology does not generally cast men and masculinity as deviant dangerous and morally inferior. In fact the expression “toxic masculinity” is something you will often hear bandied about by gender-studies “academics.” But I will go into that in more detail if you do decide to address my original post."
I already addressed them. Show me one that I ignored. Toxic Masculinity? Clearly, you don't understand the origins of the word and what it actually means. Toxic Masculinity can best be summed up by taking a look at men like Davis Aurini or Paul Elam. It is essentially a social construct that is prevalent in groups like MGTOWs and among many MRAs like the ones I mentioned. It is the rape apologist who think men have no self-control and only care about sex. It is the guy who constantly talks about being an "alpha" male while belittling other males as "betas" or "manginas" if they dare to disagree with them. It is the idea that men are not supposed to have emotions. It is those guys who complain about how society is being "feminized." It is the guy who treats women like property because he thinks it is what men are supposed to do. Toxic Masculinity isn't about being a male. Its is about adhering to this harmful stereotype of what a "real man" is supposed to be in the minds of some men. It is harmful to both men and women.
I was also looking forward to you debunking the basics of biological scholarship and the theory of evolution. Of course as part of that, natural selection would have to be disproven too in order to make most feminist theory in any way credible.
I already discussed this earlier. You are attempting to use evolution and biology as a justification for oppression without actually explaining why this is a good idea. You do realize that we're not neanderthals anymore, just trying to survive as a species, right? Here is the main problem you face in this uphill battle. There are various biological differences between men and women. Yes, we know this already. However, first you need to show me how denying women certain rights are in any way justified by our differences. Such as the right to vote, work, etc... I'll wait for you to do that before I ask the far more important question.
Completely debunked feminist bogeyman theories, clearly invented, mostly to demonise men; concepts like “rape-culture” the “pay gap” and “objectification of women” would also need to be defended. Knock yourself out but if you want me to reply, stay on topic.
What? You didn't even discuss most of those issues in our debate. When did you talk about the pay gap or rape-culture? I think you must be mixing up our debate with another one you are having or something. lol
And just to make myself absolutely clear, yet again. Because I have no intention of replying to any more straw-man arguments; I am not claiming, nor have I ever claimed that women have not been discriminated against throughout history. I have never heard any anti-feminist make that claim, which is just as well because it would be a ridiculous claim to make. My point and the point that you, like most feminists wilfully ignore, was that men were also discriminated against all through human history and often in even harsher ways.
Actually, I have seen quite a few people claim exactly that but I won't address that unless you want me to... As for you, no, you never said that women were not discriminated against. You just downplayed the types of discrimination women faced and try to pass many of them off as "privileges" while claiming that men were oppressed far more than women because they were forced to join the military. Even though it was MEN who decided that MEN would be conscripted and MEN who decided that women were not allowed to join the military even if we wanted to sign up.
No comments:
Post a Comment