80 Years of Subtle Sexism

[Tony]

No, I have to go with Roger here. Absolutely women have historically been oppressed. It wasn't some women, it was virtually all women.

That isn't what Roger is saying. He is saying that men (with the implication being all men) have "controlled the world" (and all the mean oppressing of the women that that entails). That just isn't true. The fact is that the vast majority of people - men and women - in history have been oppressed by the rich and ruling class.

For instance, Queen Elizabeth I said, on the eve of the Armada battle, "I may have the weak body of a woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too." She couldn't be a woman and rule England (a fact of primogeniture that was only changed with the birth of Princess Charlotte) so she styled herself as a King in a female body.She...the most powerful individual in England...spent most of her reign fighting men who wanted her safely married and quiet. In a culture where women (even a Princess of the Blood) were only allowed to own property if they were widowed (and even then men could easily steal it from them, leading to centuries of convoluted land laws in Britain) Elizabeth oppressed other women just as often as she was oppressed.

She also oppressed men. The existence of women rulers like Elizabeth completely destroys the sexist "men=oppressors, women=oppressed" SJW narrative.

Our basic laws and traditions are rooted in misogyny. Women take their husband's name upon marriage. Even today it is uncommon not to do so. But why? Why is his family name more important or worthwhile than mine? Why does his name always come first on contracts even though I have a degree and he doesn't? I could keep going.

Why do all those dirty Jewish bankers control the money and run Hollywood?

 

[Magrat]

She also oppressed men. The existence of women rulers like Elizabeth completely destroys the sexist "men=oppressors, women=oppressed" SJW narrative.

There have been 7 queens (one of whom reigned as a puppet for her father for nine days, all of the rest except Elizabeth I were controlled by their husbands) and 62 Kings, none of whom were controlled by their wives or mother's. You were saying??

 

[Tony]

There have been 7 queens (one of whom reigned as a puppet for her father for nine days, all of the rest except Elizabeth I were controlled by their husbands) and 62 Kings, none of whom were controlled by their wives or mother's. You were saying??

So? Those queens (I'm ignoring your uk-centrism) still had more power and status than the vast majority of men in the country.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That isn't what Roger is saying. He is saying that men (with the implication being all men) have oppressed (all) women.

Um, no. I never said or implied that all men oppress all women! Only that women as a gender have been oppressed by the men who had authority over them. Obviously not every man was in a position of power, but the people in those positions were almost all men.

The fact is that the vast majority of people... in history have been oppressed by the rich and ruling class.

So it's more than just a few now? Even Feudal societies had a layered hierarchy of 'ruling classes' from the king down to vassals and tenants, involving thousands of men 'ruling' over those below them. Only the peasants at the very bottom could be considered 'oppressed' (and not all were). But men ruled over women at all levels.

 

[Tony]

Um, no. I never said or implied that all men oppress all women!

Then why did you take issue with my reply to the person who said that men have "controlled the world"?

Only that women as a gender have been oppressed by the men who had authority over them.

And men, as a gender, have been oppressed by the women who had authority over them. If your point is to say that people have been oppressed by those who had authority over them...well....duh.

Obviously not every man was in a position of power, but the people in those positions were almost all men.

This is only relevant if you view history through a sexist lens.

So it's more than just a few now?

What?

Even Feudal societies had a layered hierarchy of 'ruling classes' from the king down to vassals and tenants, involving thousands of men 'ruling' over those below them. Only the peasants at the very bottom could be considered 'oppressed' (and not all were). But men ruled over women at all levels.

None of those men in any of the layers had free speech, freedom of religion or the right to choose their leaders. Others didn't have the right to own land or choose their profession. Still others lived a life of virtual slavery and weren't permitted to leave the land they worked. You wouldn't call that oppressed?

 

[Magrat]

So? Those queens (I'm ignoring your uk-centrism) still had more power and status than the vast majority of men in the country.

UK centrism...I'm American btw, I had mentioned Elizabeth I so figured I'd stick with that example.

Okay so SEVEN women out of millions and millions and millions over centuries and millennia had more power than some men. Whoop de fricken do.

 

[Tony]

UK centrism...I'm American btw, I had mentioned Elizabeth I so figured I'd stick with that example.

That's fair. I just wanted to indicate that I wasn't going to be talking about China, Egypt, Rome or any other example from history I could find.

Okay so SEVEN women out of millions and millions and millions over centuries and millennia had more power than some men. Whoop de fricken do.

I'll take this as a concession. Although, I need to remove the snark and make it more accurate:

Okay so SEVEN absolute monarchs (in one country out of many that had similar systems of government throughout history), including an entire class of aristocratic women had more power than most men in their respective countries.

This is the part where a skeptic who cares about the truth would adjust their views upon new information. Are you now going to ditch the "men=oppressors, women=oppressed" narrative?

 

[Myriad]

You are a male descended from centuries of males. Women are descended from centuries of women. Does that make it clearer to you?

This comment is from much earlier in the thread, but it appears to have passed without criticism.

I am indeed a male*, but I'm pretty sure I'm descended from equal numbers of men and women. And unless I and every biology teacher I have had were very much mistaken, so is everyone else.

The suggestion that people are descended from a long line of only (or predominantly) their own gender, which has the disadvantages of being false, antiquated, harmful, and way overdue to be scrapped, does not strike me as one likely to make anything clearer to anyone.


*Though I was under the impression that that usage was offensive, as male is an adjective and therefore not suitable for use as a noun designating a person. Or does that only apply to "female?"

 

[Magrat]

That's fair. I just wanted to indicate that I wasn't going to be talking about China, Egypt, Rome or any other example from history I could find.



I'll take this as a concession. Although, I need to remove the snark and make it more accurate:



This is the part where a skeptic who cares about the truth would adjust their views upon new information. Are you now going to ditch the "men=oppressors, women=oppressed" narrative?

No because it's not true. You're ignoring actual history in favor of the "BBC Specials" view of aristocratic life. An aristocratic woman had no more power than a woman in Cheapside, and even poor men had more rights.

 

[Klimax]

Reminder: Especially when using history and historical precedent be aware that different regions had different laws, customs, rules and so on. Social issue in one country/region won't be too similar to another country/region. Prime example being Great Britain versus France versus Germany or Hamburg Monarchy.

Current discussion is using bit too much of GB as example.

Also there is currently unhealthy amount of assertions without backing. (Both sides)

 

[Klimax]

This comment is from much earlier in the thread, but it appears to have passed without criticism.

I am indeed a male*, but I'm pretty sure I'm descended from equal numbers of men and women. And unless I and every biology teacher I have had were very much mistaken, so is everyone else.

The suggestion that people are descended from a long line of only (or predominantly) their own gender, which has the disadvantages of being false, antiquated, harmful, and way overdue to be scrapped, does not strike me as one likely to make anything clearer to anyone.


*Though I was under the impression that that usage was offensive, as male is an adjective and therefore not suitable for use as a noun designating a person. Or does that only apply to "female?"

I took it as parody of SJW-like stance. (Guilty because...) And as such there is not much to challenge...

 

[truethat]

There have been 7 queens (one of whom reigned as a puppet for her father for nine days, all of the rest except Elizabeth I were controlled by their husbands) and 62 Kings, none of whom were controlled by their wives or mother's. You were saying??

Just curious how you know this? Not disagreeing per se, but it's interesting to me how you just presume that a male leader would not have been controlled by a wife or mother or even manipulated?

That's certainly not borne out in history. This is an example of subtle sexism towards men.

Two points, you are afraid of a man coming into the bathroom with your daughter, but don't worry when female pedophiles are in there with her. Because you know, all pedophiles are men.

Women in positions of authority are "controlled" by husbands and fathers but Men in positions of authority are never controlled by wives or mothers.

Basic history research shows this not to be true. So why make that assumption?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No because it's not true. You're ignoring actual history in favor of the "BBC Specials" view of aristocratic life. An aristocratic woman had no more power than a woman in Cheapside, and even poor men had more rights.

You're trying to claim that a Duchess had less power than a poor common man or woman?

 

[cullennz]

You're trying to claim that a Duchess had less power than a poor common man or woman?

Confused me as well. Some Duchesses husbands were just puppets

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Confused me as well. Some Duchesses husbands were just puppets

Even if her influence never extended beyond the home a wealthy woman might have a staff numbering from a dozen or so for a small town house to a hundred or more for a country pile, the degree of control that each level of this hierarchy had over the levels below would be unthinkable to us today, at the very bottom maids, pot boys, etc lived a life that is hard to distinguish from slavery, ultimately the entire structure reported up through the Butler, Housekeeper and Cook (the 'senior management' of Service) to the Lady of the House, whose word was absolute law within the house unconstrained by anything like modern employment regulation. There's more to power and rights than the vote (which a tiny minority had until very recently) or seats in the legislature.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What?

Ftr,the part I put in quotes was what he says, not my opinion.

Didn't say they were. But I've known guys who thought they had to be The Rock at all times "for the good of my family". They wound up being very hard and very brittle. Some of them broke like diamonds under the hands of a clumsy gem-cutter. They were just trying too hard and wound up letting their family down despite their best intentions.

 

[Magrat]

Didn't say they were. But I've known guys who thought they had to be The Rock at all times "for the good of my family". They wound up being very hard and very brittle. Some of them broke like diamonds under the hands of a clumsy gem-cutter. They were just trying too hard and wound up letting their family down despite their best intentions.

Yes, this exactly. It's not my choice or pressure from me that makes him this way.

 

[Magrat]

Even if her influence never extended beyond the home a wealthy woman might have a staff numbering from a dozen or so for a small town house to a hundred or more for a country pile, the degree of control that each level of this hierarchy had over the levels below would be unthinkable to us today, at the very bottom maids, pot boys, etc lived a life that is hard to distinguish from slavery, ultimately the entire structure reported up through the Butler, Housekeeper and Cook (the 'senior management' of Service) to the Lady of the House, whose word was absolute law within the house unconstrained by anything like modern employment regulation. There's more to power and rights than the vote (which a tiny minority had until very recently) or seats in the legislature.

And she was still subject entirely to her husband, who could at any moment obtain an annulment and send her to a nunnery. See, all of the wives of Henry VIII (except second and last) for examples.

Yes, this has been GB. I used Elizabeth I for my original all example that was questioned, so we have been talking about GB. You can choose another area of the world if you like.

Were some kings and some aristocratic men controlled by women? Emotionally, maybe. I'm referring to legal ownership, not emotional blackmail. Women were not people under Tudor law. Yes, we can look at other areas and find examples of women being empowered. I believe we will find more that support my position. I am not sure we can, in this forum, encompass all of human history in all areas, but we can give it a go if you'd all like.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, this exactly. It's not my choice or pressure from me that makes him this way.

No, and spouses shouldn't blame themselves for it. It could be called an obsession, an inability to do less than be superhuman, despite the obvious problems with that.

 

[Klimax]

And she was still subject entirely to her husband, who could at any moment obtain an annulment and send her to a nunnery. See, all of the wives of Henry VIII (except second and last) for examples.

Yes, this has been GB. I used Elizabeth I for my original all example that was questioned, so we have been talking about GB. You can choose another area of the world if you like.

Were some kings and some aristocratic men controlled by women? Emotionally, maybe. I'm referring to legal ownership, not emotional blackmail. Women were not people under Tudor law. Yes, we can look at other areas and find examples of women being empowered. I believe we will find more that support my position. I am not sure we can, in this forum, encompass all of human history in all areas, but we can give it a go if you'd all like.

At which point your argument will resemble more "God of the gaps" then your original position and assertions.

And I should note you still haven't provided evidence for your assertions.

Anyway, Maria Theresa would like to have a word with you...

BTW: For further fun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rulers_and_title_holders

Anyway, things were quite bit more complicated in history then people wish to pretend. (Like woman had right to manage their possessions including lands even if married, did get some extra inalienable rights) And most men weren't free or equal either...

So beware when using word "all" even with word "almost".