80 Years of Subtle Sexism

[Magrat]

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".

There was a link in that post you referenced. If you tell me specifically what you want me to back up I will do my best. I'd rather not spend today randomly linking to various histories trying to hit which assertion you're questioning.

 

[Klimax]

There was a link in that post you referenced. If you tell me specifically what you want me to back up I will do my best. I'd rather not spend today randomly linking to various histories trying to hit which assertion you're questioning.

Sorry, I was referring to your assertions about Elisabeth I. and other female rulers. (Maybe you noticed I mentioned very similar stuff your link talks about, although it appears law of Bohemia was bit better* for women. Although it is still quite similar, which IIRC is due to same source.)

Pity I don't have any English speaking links for Czech laws as they differed in some important details which lead to very interesting things.

*No ownership of woman, woman could own property and her dowry wasn't alienable. (Although if poor, not many options as shown in my own link)

Sadly, it seems those interesting things were bit more exceptions then I though:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...nd_Serfdom_Evidence_from_Early_Modern_Bohemia

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So far I haven't started a parody thread with the obvious title.

You're welcome.

 

[Magrat]

Sorry, I was referring to your assertions about Elisabeth I. and other female rulers. (Maybe you noticed I mentioned very similar stuff your link talks about, although it appears law of Bohemia was bit better* for women. Although it is still quite similar, which IIRC is due to same source.)

Pity I don't have any English speaking links for Czech laws as they differed in some important details which lead to very interesting things.

*No ownership of woman, woman could own property and her dowry wasn't alienable. (Although if poor, not many options as shown in my own link)

Sadly, it seems those interesting things were bit more exceptions then I though:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...nd_Serfdom_Evidence_from_Early_Modern_Bohemia

What you want me to provide evidence backing up is, the female rulers of England were largely puppets of males? That assertion? I'm making sure before I put time into locating information to find out you wanted me to show something different (I am a bit forgetful).

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

But you're still getting the comparison wrong. Basically any noblewoman (and there were a lot more than seven) was much more powerful and privileged, and much less oppressed, than any peasant man. Society was sexist, but it was classist to a much greater degree. And that class reality contradicts the feminist narrative that all men oppressed all women. It didn't work that way.

 

[Magrat]

But you're still getting the comparison wrong. Basically any noblewoman (and there were a lot more than seven) was much more powerful and privileged, and much less oppressed, than any peasant man. Society was sexist, but it was classist to a much greater degree. And that class reality contradicts the feminist narrative that all men oppressed all women. It didn't work that way.

No body said all men oppress all women, and I continue to maintain you are incorrect about noble women. No matter how many different ways you reword it, it's still not true.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

Which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with your claim that noble women had no more power than poor women and less power than poor men. Just because someone else has power over you doesn't means that you don't have power over others. Incidentally, Henry VIII might not be such a great example given that he had to break from Rome and create a whole new established religion to get his way, not exactly representative.... Oh, and it would be more true to say that the poor weren't people under Tudor law, rich women certainly were, secondary to rich men but definitely better treated than the poor.

 

[Magrat]

How 's this for evidence women pay more for everything, and not by choice: http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-tax-makes-female-consumers-pay-more-2015-12

 

[Darat]

Interesting article, but it seems to be strange, how can the same cane for example be more expensive if a woman buys it. Apart from the children's toys I suspect that like for like is not being compared. Interestingly in the UK we have a very cheap clothing store called Primark. Ladies t shirts are 33% cheaper than the male ones, on all like for like equivalent the women's version is cheaper. (There was a TV report that looked into this but sorry no link.) And that matches with my own personal experiences mens clothes on a like for like (excluding high end fashion as I have no idea about that) are more expensive, basic moisturises and other stuff the young men use are more expensive than the basic equivalent for women.

 

[Ziggurat]

No body said all men oppress all women

Yes, actually, they have. Given how enthusiastically you've participated in this thread, I'm a little surprised by this basic ignorance of feminist ideology. It may not be what everyone who calls themselves a feminist believes, but it's common enough, especially within academia.

and I continue to maintain you are incorrect about noble women.

You can "maintain" it all you want to, but that doesn't make me incorrect.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Interesting article, but it seems to be strange, how can the same cane for example be more expensive if a woman buys it. Apart from the children's toys I suspect that like for like is not being compared. Interestingly in the UK we have a very cheap clothing store called Primark. Ladies t shirts are 33% cheaper than the male ones, on all like for like equivalent the women's version is cheaper. (There was a TV report that looked into this but sorry no link.) And that matches with my own personal experiences mens clothes on a like for like (excluding high end fashion as I have no idea about that) are more expensive, basic moisturises and other stuff the young men use are more expensive than the basic equivalent for women.

Women's clothes are less durable than men's because they are expected to not wear them as long (fashion changes). So they would cost less in material.

Above based on dating a lady who was taking "Fashion Design" at Purdue and liked to rant about that kind of thing.

 

[Magrat]

Yes, actually, they have. Given how enthusiastically you've participated in this thread, I'm a little surprised by this basic ignorance of feminist ideology. It may not be what everyone who calls themselves a feminist believes, but it's common enough, especially within academia.[\QUOTE]

So you have based your argument here in opposition to some so-called feminist ideology instead of what people have actually said, and you want me to defend something in academia instead of my actual position? I don't even know how to respond to that. Sorry, but I'm not an academic feminist. I am referring to what actually happened in this actual thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

How 's this for evidence women pay more for everything, and not by choice: http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-tax-makes-female-consumers-pay-more-2015-12

Still have the problem of no control on the sampling method, so no way to tell if this is cherry picking or if items are truly equivalent. And the first item shown on the study, the Radio Flyer scooter at Target, is currently listed as being the same price for both girls and boys versions.

 

[Magrat]

Still have the problem of no control on the sampling method, so no way to tell if this is cherry picking or if items are truly equivalent. And the first item shown on the study, the Radio Flyer scooter at Target, is currently listed as being the same price for both girls and boys versions.

The radio flyer price was "corrected" after this was brought to public attention.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you have based your argument here in opposition to some so-called feminist ideology instead of what people have actually said

Had you paid better attention, you would have noticed that I didn't claim anyone in this thread has said that. But the fact that people have said it elsewhere, repeatedly, means that people have actually said it.

and you want me to defend something in academia instead of my actual position?

I never asked you to do that. That is an entirely imagined burden that you placed on yourself.

 

[truethat]

How 's this for evidence women pay more for everything, and not by choice: http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-tax-makes-female-consumers-pay-more-2015-12

You're blaming capitalists responding to supply and demand on "sexism?"

I'm a chick who doesn't buy a lot of clothing. For example, I have two pairs of shoes. I wear my black flats throughout the spring summer and fall and then switch to black boots or ugg type shoes for the winter and switch back again.

Most women I know are floored that I only own two pairs of shoes. It's interesting to me because most men I know only own a few pairs of shoes as well. Sneakers or sports shoes, casual shoes, dressy shoes (special occasions and rarely worn) and business shoes.

How is responding to women constantly wanting different products, new products somehow a SEXIST move?

Again, I raised three boys and because of this was in a house with 4 males. My shampoo was Treseme basic big jug bottles that lasted a while.

No one is FORCING WOMEN to buy pink razors, fancy shampoo, tons of different shoes.

What kind of market system would it be that a business didn't capitalize on women's preferences and make as much money as they can off them in the process?

Why do women BLAME OTHERS for their choices. It's not like they check for ID when you buy things. The "men's options" and "boys options" are RIGHT THERE and able to be purchased.


You are buying tee shirts for your kids. There are two kinds, the ones in the boys section and the ones in the girls section........what is stopping you from buying the ones in the boys section?

IT'S YOUR CHOICE to buy what you want. No one is FORCING YOU to buy the other product. Why are you playing the victim here?


This cracked me up

Even in old age, women get a bad deal. Supports and braces for women cost 15% more than those for men, canes cost 12% more,

http://www.fashionablecanes.com/sea...z5a82qHGe8XSZ59MH-SpqnFA8QeGc_pnRyRoC50Tw_wcB

So buy the man's cane!

 

[Magrat]

Had you paid better attention, you would have noticed that I didn't claim anyone in this thread has said that. But the fact that people have said it elsewhere, repeatedly, means that people have actually said it.



I never asked you to do that. That is an entirely imagined burden that you placed on yourself.

Okey dokey then. Would you care to discuss the actual things I said, or are you good now?

 

[Magrat]

You're blaming capitalists responding to supply and demand on "sexism?"

I'm a chick who doesn't buy a lot of clothing. For example, I have two pairs of shoes. I wear my black flats throughout the spring summer and fall and then switch to black boots or ugg type shoes for the winter and switch back again.

Most women I know are floored that I only own two pairs of shoes. It's interesting to me because most men I know only own a few pairs of shoes as well. Sneakers or sports shoes, casual shoes, dressy shoes (special occasions and rarely worn) and business shoes.

How is responding to women constantly wanting different products, new products somehow a SEXIST move?

Again, I raised three boys and because of this was in a house with 4 males. My shampoo was Treseme basic big jug bottles that lasted a while.

No one is FORCING WOMEN to buy pink razors, fancy shampoo, tons of different shoes.

What kind of market system would it be that a business didn't capitalize on women's preferences and make as much money as they can off them in the process?

Why do women BLAME OTHERS for their choices. It's not like they check for ID when you buy things. The "men's options" and "boys options" are RIGHT THERE and able to be purchased.


You are buying tee shirts for your kids. There are two kinds, the ones in the boys section and the ones in the girls section........what is stopping you from buying the ones in the boys section?

IT'S YOUR CHOICE to buy what you want. No one is FORCING YOU to buy the other product. Why are you playing the victim here?


This cracked me up





http://www.fashionablecanes.com/sea...z5a82qHGe8XSZ59MH-SpqnFA8QeGc_pnRyRoC50Tw_wcB

So buy the man's cane!

From what I understand of the study, they compared the Women's razors versus Mens razors, or the pink girls bike versus the blue boys bike. There is no reason the pink items should cost more, I'm pretty sure whatever makes it pink isn't significantly more expensive than whatever makes it blue.

I'm not sure who you are addressing as "playing the victim". I shared a link that was relevant to the discussion.

Additional thought, read the comments on these Bic for Women pens, pretty awesome http://www.amazon.co.uk/BIC-For-Her-Medium-Ballpoint/product-reviews/B004FTGJUW

 

[truethat]

From what I understand of the study, they compared the Women's razors versus Mens razors, or the pink girls bike versus the blue boys bike. There is no reason the pink items should cost more, I'm pretty sure whatever makes it pink isn't significantly more expensive than whatever makes it blue.

I'm not sure who you are addressing as "playing the victim". I shared a link that was relevant to the discussion.

Additional thought, read the comments on these Bic for Women pens, pretty awesome http://www.amazon.co.uk/BIC-For-Her-Medium-Ballpoint/product-reviews/B004FTGJUW

What I'm addressing as "Playing the Victim" is pretty much summed up in the reviews for the Bic for Women pen.

It's amazing to me how stupid women run out and buy something that's "Made for women" as if it's somehow a different product. KUDOS to the businesses that make money off this.

It's supply and demand, not sexism. It's just a basic business move.

If someone is willing to pay more money for a PINK CHIA pet then why not charge more? There most certainly IS a reason it should cost more. If a consumer is WILLING to pay more, then why not charge more? If a woman is dumb enough to pay more money for a razor just because it's PINK then they are the ones choosing to do it.

If all women bought the male regular razor then there would be no market for the pink ones and no reason for the higher price.

That's how BUSINESSES work. Marketing isn't a charity function. If you fall for the marketing, then it's your own fault, not some "sexist agenda."

 

[Ziggurat]

Okey dokey then. Would you care to discuss the actual things I said, or are you good now?

It's never been just about you.