In religion, women are second-class.

[Hallo Alfie]

Your bigotry seems to be shining through under your guise of "I'm only joking, really."

Funny story, I was in the Dominican Republic many years ago. I went with a group of young people into the countryside where we had a big picnic and spent the day at one of the kid's family farm. There was a gender division of labor. The women cooked all day in the kitchen while the men played dominoes outside.

But when it came time to eat, turns out all the meat from the soup was missing. The women had already feasted before serving the men.

I love it.

Is that bigotry too?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Or rent a sense of humor.

Perhaps she and skeptigirl could seek out a two for one discount.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What the heck is this?

I own my own home, run my own business, make more money than my ex and choose what I am going to wear. I do not live in a country that demands I wear a costume or uniform. I don't live in a country that dictates I need a male with me to venture outside or to drive a car.

All good stuff. This state of play came about because a lot of people worked hard to change a system. More options, a good thing.

Do women in my country truly have equal rights? No.

What rights don't you have? It isn't 1960 anymore. For Fox Ache, Wendy Lawrence went into outer space as an astronaut. So too did Lisa Nowak.



Please be specific.

What Rights Don't You Have?

DR

 

[Fiona]

Or rent a sense of humor.

To give a serious answer to this - yes. Most certainly.

Jokes are for humourous value. Humour is a form of social bonding - it takes something that's anomalous or uncomfortable and makes people feel better about experiencing it as a collective. It makes that bond tighter.

Unfortunately, if you're on the outside of a joke, or the butt of it, it forces you outside of that social group. It's easy to feel isolated, or even attacked, when this happens. I'd certainly say that's a form of 'harm'.

Whether that has anything to do with sexism in the context of the OP, I can't say. But to say jokes are harmless is a little too general for my liking. Jokes can definitely cause harm.

Athon

I agree with Athon here.

There's a line.

For instance, most of the Jewish jokes I know are ones I heard from my dear friend Staci -- who I grew up with from the age of 4 -- and my former colleague and roommate Bruce, both Jewish. These are the type of jokes that poke fun at cultural norms and quirks, but are not hurtful.

They are not "kike jokes".

I laugh at Jeff Foxworthy's routines, despite being the butt of some of them.

But there's another type of joke, the kind of joke that parlays on hateful stereotypes and bigotry.

And the only thing worse than hearing someone tell such a joke with the intention of being hurtful is to hear someone tell such a joke who does not understand that there's anything wrong with it.

can't be bothered to go through this again so I will just post these responses and leave it at that.

BTW did I mention all men are pigs?

What?? Have you no sense of humour?

 

[CriticalSock]

can't be bothered to go through this again so I will just post these responses and leave it at that.

BTW did I mention all men are pigs Boars?

What?? Have you no sense of humour?

Fixed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

can't be bothered to go through this again so I will just post these responses and leave it at that.

BTW did I mention all men are pigs?

What?? Have you no sense of humour?

No, I actually thought that was pretty funny too.

 

[Fiona]

Ah. No, I explicitly qualified it as applying to the territorial extent of the Roman Empire and later HRE. Once you move outside that zone, that's of course no longer true.

In my defense, though, I was answering a message which didn't make any mention of celts.

True, though it was the context of that particular exchage, so that was what puzzled me

For the Norse, though, that's where the rise of the Thane class started. So they're actually a little bit ahead of the curve in that aspect.

It should probably be mentioned though that the Norse also produced an incredible supply of mercenaries and pirates, which shaped the popular view of the Vikings. But those also aren't exactly peasants who were drafted as needed, but people for which being a sword for hire to some warlord or a pirate was their only available source of income. As only one son inherited the farm, the rest were basically kicked out in the street. And being a merc or a pirate was probably the easiest available option.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure that the largest mass of the Norse population were slaves (thralls) and bondsmen. And I mean really chattel slavery at its finest

Can you point me in the direction of sources for this, please. It is at odds with what I have read. It is certainly true that slavery existed in Norse culture and that there was a slave trade: but my understanding was that slaves were most often obtained from two sources: raiding and debt. Is it the case that the societal structure was akin to that of, say, Sparta: with an excluded slave class we hear little about? How is this reconciled with the Thing? With the obligation to kill a violent "king"? with the norse tradition of electing their chiefs?

The christianisation of the norse was not accomplished till after 1000 ad and it was a long time after that that it was really entrenched amongst the people (different countries had different experiences of course but the conversion of kings speaks little to the spread of the religion amongst the populace. Would you say that the norse version of christianity was properly roman or was it in fact a variation much like the celtic church? It seems to me that there is little to support the idea that roman catholicism had deep roots in those societies (nor in the celtic lands) and it does not seem to have had a long history either. Lutheran and Calvin churches seem to have suited those peoples better and what I am exploring is the proposition that the gender relations which underpin western culture derive from the roman empire rather than from the church; and that the church reflected the norms of that empire. That does not undermine the thesis of the OP at all: but it puts it in a different light. We can perhaps test that idea by a focus on those western societies which did not come under roman control and that is why the subject was raised.

Also, IIRC the thanedom in Scottland is a bit of a different use of the word, so it's not necessarily easy to make a comparison. A norse thane was the lowest rung of the aristocracy, someone posessing 5 hides of land to support him as a professional soldier. (A hide being the surface unit a peasant familiy was supposed to work.) IIRC the Scottish thanes were a bit higher than that on the hierarchy pyramid. These were nobles and aristocrats.

I note that you attribute primogenture to the norse and use that as the foundation for viking (piracy and mercenary service as you describe it) but again that is at odds with what I have read. In Scotland this pattern of inheritance was not introduced till the 12th century and was imported from england. On the basis of the sagas I had understood that the norse social structure was like that of the Scots: that is it was essentially a clan or family system and on the death of a man his property was divided between his male heirs (though not in a simple way because all property was at the same time the property of the whole clan and all debt or fines for crime was the responsibility of that clan as a whole)

So I am not sure where you are getting the idea that by 1000 AD the feudal system with its fixed class structure was in place in those societies

Similarly you seem to suggest that the "chivalric" narrative which legitimises those structures was in place towards the end of the period 800-1000 AD in mainland europe. If I have misunderstood you I am sorry. But if that is what you mean then I do not understand what you are really referring to. The earliest order of chivalry was established in Hungary and that was not till the (at the earliest) the 12th century: more usually given as around 1350. They did grow out of earlier bodies such as the knights of Malta but even they were not truly founded till the later part of the 11th century: though their hospital is far earlier

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You generally don't hear about great sagas about slaves, isn't it?

Similarly for the things and such. Sure, the thanes and eoldermen got to vote and debate. Slaves didn't, and nor did bondsmen.

The comparison with Sparta is actually very apt.

Also, you probably understand that there is an absolute minimum surface of land that can feed a peasant and pay the share to a thane. The aforementioned hide. Which wasn't defined as a fixed surface, but really varied with soil quality and climate, the common denominator being that it was barely enough to feed a peasant family and a 5'th of a thane's income. Even in places where for higher nobility it was customary to divide the estates, a peasant family literally couldn't subsist on any less. It made no sense to subdivide at that level. Dividing it into two or three or four would put all of them firmly below subsistence line.

Also a thane with less than 5 hides of land was no longer a thane. Again, it didn't make much sense to subdivide, unless you wanted _all_ your children to lose any privileges.

ETA: also, well, I didn't say anything about the christian chivalric narrative. Of course you wouldn't find that in pre-christian Scandinavia. The division in warriors vs workers (often slaves) vs priests is far older and independent of christianity, though.

I'll look up some sources in a jiffy. Bit short on time right now.

 

[Toke]

As far as I recall, the edda divide society into 3 classes, slave, peasant, and noble.

The priest class must have been lumbed up with the noble class, the peasants would be free men and their sons called up for (leding) raiding and warfare.
I am not sure what proportion of the population would be free men, but it was certainly larger than in later feudal times where mercenaries were necessary.

 

[Fiona]

I have been digging about and there is nothing I can find which says what proportion of the population were thralls: the domesday book in england (parts of which were closely aligned with norse law and custom because of settlements by vikings) gives an average of 10% slaves, though the proportion was very variable by region.

Most of the sources I can find appear to confirm that the majority of thralls were obtained by capture. Members of the community could be enslaved by their choice if they could not maintain themselves; by inability to meet a fine imposed;or by inability to pay a debt. Slaves had the same sort of status as domestic animals in terms of legal rights (though there were some peculiarities: for example a slave could kill in defence of his wife with impunity). However they also had a right to buy their freedom and it seems to have been fairly common practice (though by no means mandatory) to cede a piece of land for their use: and they were also allowed to trade in a small way. A child born to a female slave was a slave: but a child born to a free woman was free no matter if the father was slave or free. Perhaps the existence of that law was just to cover all the bases: but it does suggest this happened from time to time: as might be expected given the living arrangements. Slaves were also freed in various circumstances and some of those were laid down in the law.

I can find no commentary which suggests anything other than that the basic unit was the clan/family nor that suggests the majority of norsemen were not free. Although basic divisions were as Toke describes some sources tell me that there were in fact at least 7 class divisions: for example freed slaves became something akin to bondsmen: they had continuing obligations to their former owner and these were the price of adoption in to the family/clan as a member. Many were freehold farmers but that again masks complexity: one was not truly freehold unless one's family had farmed that land as free men for 6 generations: and so many were tenants in effect though still free.

The arrangements varied in different parts of the region but in all it appears that the "king" was "elected" (as was also the case in Scotland). The law was not written and was in the hands of "lawmen" who memorised the law and handed it on (this is agan similar to what happened in Scotland: that role was in some cases a particular family's responsibility, for example the Morrison's in the Hebrides). I cannot find any record of primogeniture until about 1100 AD. While each family would have a leader it does not seem to be true that this was the eldest son: and nor does it appear that the other sons were thrown out. Indeed Harald Fairhair caused lot of bother in Norway by naming all of his sons successors, rather than taking the tanist route of naming one male relative (but that was rather late in the day and related to the kingship of much larger area on the threshold of feudal and christian transition really). So far as I can determine the remaining members of the family continued to live in the household and I do not see any requirement that they leave. The viking does not seem to have been initiated by landless and homeless younger sons at all: the farmers seem to have planted in spring and then gone viking until harvest time: and /or harvested and then gone raiding till the weather broke. Some captains seem to have been professionals but most were effectively crofters and even those who made their fortunes through viking tended to retire to a farm (their original home or a new one).

Social mobility seems to have been possible as shown by the possibility of a slave buying his freedom and the possibility of a free man being elected "king". All free men were expected to attend the "Thing" unless they were single farmers who could not leave their farm. Disputes between free people were settled at the Thing but blood feud was also common and individual honour and revenge was important: though a death could be paid for at a fixed rate depending on the value of the person killed.

Women were given a dowry on marriage and that remained their property throughout the marriage. On death their children inherited. Although women moved to the home of their husband's they were considered to still be members of their family of origin. They do not appear to have had much choice in marriage but they did have the right to divorce. If they did so for good reason they retained the dowry but if it was deemed they divorced for no cause it passed to the husband. However they had the custody of younger children by law: older children were apparently assigned to both family's evenly (though as with the celts there was a tradition of fostering in any case and the would not be at home from about age 5 until adulthood (about 10)

What seems clear to me is that the language we use is not adequate. Terms such as "king" are apt to confuse the matter because we have a picture of what that means and it is not really applicable

 

[Sun Countess]

What rights don't you have? It isn't 1960 anymore. For Fox Ache, Wendy Lawrence went into outer space as an astronaut. So too did Lisa Nowak.



Please be specific.

What Rights Don't You Have?

DR

Education, jobs, government positions have certainly opened up to females, but....


Many women in the US don't have the right to very basic healthcare. Justcharlie has written on this forum about her difficulty in accessing birth control from religious health practitioners. Pharmacists can "opt out" of providing morning-after pills to women who've been raped, because it goes against their delicate religious beliefs that their misogynistic bossman god might have blessed the woman with the precious gift of life. (It seems his "mysterious ways" often include bringing life into the world via rape or incest, including that of 9-year old girls by their stepfathers. Poor widdle omnipotent impotent Jehovah had no other choice.)

It may not be 1960, but there are large groups of people who are trying to recreate that very time, so that women no longer have the right to control their own reproductive lives.

And if I had to be a victim of a crime, I'd much rather be a man than a woman. A male victim is almost never told that he did something wrong or was asking for it in some way.

Yes, we've come a long way, baby, but we can't just stop and relax now or take it for granted that society will continue to move forwards to even truer equality.

 

[TimCallahan]

As to the percentage of the population that were thralls in Anglo-Saxon England and among the Norse, in Iceland about 1/7 (or a bit over 14%) of the population was Irish. We can be pretty sure that all of these were slaves. The social mobilty Fion spoke of can be inferred from a number men wose names were followed by the epithet "Freedmansson." Most noteworthy among those who had one parent who was a slave would be Olaf Peacock, from Laxdaela Saga. His mother, Melkorka, was actually an Irish princess capture by Vikings and sold as a slave to Olaf's father Hoskuld.

While the majority of commoners in Norse and Anglo-Saxon society were free, the government tended to be oligarchic, with large landowners dominating all others. This is also readily evident from the sagas, including especailly the short saga of Hrafnkel priest of Frey. Also, we should remember that in human societies entrenched interests tend to expand at the expense of the less powerful. Democracies tent to degrade into plutocratic oligarchies, unless they are reformed at intervals.

Bringing this back to the subject of the position of women in religion (and society), however,there seems to have been an active priestesshood of Odin in pagan Norse society. The Valkyries, whose name means "choosers of the slain" were likely, in real life, to have been women wo officiated at human sacrifices to Odin (see Ibn Fadlan's account of the Varangians on te Volga river and H. R. Ellis-Davidson's Gods and Myths of Northern Europe). Also the volu or seeress had a high position as an oracle(see Voluspa in the Elder Edda).

As Christianity began to encroach on Norse society the kings and nobles were the first to be converted. Since they were the chief worshipers of Odin his power was eclipsed relative to that of Thor, whose main supporters were the commoners. With the waining of Odin's authority his priestesses also lost power. Once Christianity had replaced paganism among the Norse women lost all power in religion.

Women's rights, along with the rights of free commoners were also stedily eroded as the Norse societies were absorbed into the mainstream of medieval Euroean culture. In England the Norman conquest fbrought these rights to a very sudden end, as free men were rapidly degraded to serfs and women were swiftly deprived of their rights to divorce their husbands and to hold land independently.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

While primogeniture indeed wasn't the law, the first born did get more, and the others would have a right to plots which were _far_ below subsistence limit. The average woman from the norse age would give birth to about 7 children. No matter how you combine the inheritance from the guy and his wife's dowry, a plot would have to be divided among about 2-3 resulting families. (The other children would die earlier.) A plot which is already the size of bare subsistence for one family, is pretty much just that. No matter how you sub-divide it, a half or third of it is not going to feed a family.

Such plots had historically been created, especially among cattle herders, but they were simply non-viable.

Either one or more chose to go "a-viking" (raiding) instead, or they all had to, because each one's inherited land simply couldn't support any of them. Eventually someone would own a parcel the size that could feed a family again, one way or the other.

Raids were indeed a major source of slaves... ironically not just for the raiders. Being captured while trying to raid a settlement could turn one into a thrall just like that. (If you were lucky enough and they didn't execute you instead.)

I'll also return to the claim that not all were equal and there was already a rise of a knightly class. E.g., in Iceland, to be legally allowed to attend a Thing, a man had to be "able to ride a full-day's journey, and bring in his own hobbled horse after baiting, and find his way by himself where the route is known to him." My emphasis there. (See, for example, here: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/laws.htm ) They were not all equal. Whoever couldn't come on his own horse or wasn't trained in riding, had no say whatsoever. You were only Thing-worthy if you owned a horse and were trained enough to ride for a day.

This is not much different from knighthood in continental Europe: the knights, although nicer formulated eventually and packed in a nice BS chivalry story, were essentially just the class who could afford a horse, to fight on horseback.

Also in Iceland, "Although still free men, paupers and vagrants were classed even below freed slaves, in part because they had no residence, and thus could not be charged. The poor were not allowed to marry. The medieval Icelandic law book Grágás states that anyone was free to take the property of a vagrant without penalty [K131] and that it was lawful to castrate a vagrant, even if death ensued [K254]." ( http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/social_classes.htm )

(Maybe it's just because I'm a man, but the thought that anyone can come lop one's "family jewels" off for just not owning a house, makes me cringe. The thought that even cold blooded murder, if disguised as an accident while trying to castrate you, was perfectly legal too, even more so.)

Lacking a home also precluded one from appearing before a Thing, even to defend oneself when accused of some crime.

So being the younger son who inherited a tiny plot of land and no home, seems to me like the pressure was right there to go a-viking or become a mercenary instead. You didn't have all that much to look forward to at home.

Now the Grágás _is_ early 12'th century, but I find it a bit hard to believe that such ideas would be late imports from the rest of Europe. If nothing else, because I'm hard pressed to find a part of Europe where such laws might have come from.

It seems to me like you have your class divisions right there, even for Iceland.

Also, it seems to me like the Sparta comparison may actually have more merit than I thought. Leaving a newborn out to die of exposure, if judged unfit, seemed to have been so traditional that even Christianity and later laws couldn't end it. (See: http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/text/Demographics.htm or http://www.voluspa.org/nornschildren.htm )

 

[Steelmage]

The earliest Tao, to my knowledge, women were not 2nd class citzens. The Tao is just is, it was not until later on that it became what the OP said.

 

[TimCallahan]

The earliest Tao, to my knowledge, women were not 2nd class citzens. The Tao is just is, it was not until later on that it became what the OP said.

Perhaps what we are dealing with here is the natural tendency of societies to stratify. There is probably a lot of flux and potential instability in egalitarian social systems. That flux would tend to be diminished in societies with a more rigid level of hierarchy. Also, the tendency of wealth to beget wealth and power to continue to accrue to the initially powerful would lend itself to this stratification. Also, hierarchy naturally increases as societies become more complex.

I suspect that sexual stratificaton is inevitable since, if one can suppress one half the population at a stroke, imposing a hierarchy is that much easier. As in the Tao, early Christianity may have been, in practice, a good deal more egalitarian than it was later.

The natural tendency of societies to settle into hierarchies may be analogous to the second law of thermodynamics, in that systems go from high concentrations of energy to lower concentrations. At first, it might seem that increasing hierarchy would be the opposite of the second law, since that involves a breakdown of hierarchical levels of energy. However, I would argue that there is a good deal more social energy in an eglaitarian system and a greater liklihood of social change. The concentration of wealth and power, and the increase in social hierarchy impede social change and increase societal stability.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I wouldn't take religion as a 1-to-1 mirror of society at the time, though. Sometimes it's more like complementary: it doesn't have to solve things which aren't a "problem" to start with.

Probably the best example IMHO are the Greeks I've already mentioned.

If you go by just their religion, they have some incredibly powerful and independent Goddesses. Hera, Athena, Artemis, etc. Even when they're married, like Hera is, they're actually very much independent and feel free to act against their husbands or their husbands' will. Hercules has to deal with a whole load of crap (including literally in one of the trials) just because his dad can't tell his wife "deal with it."

And a lot of major cities had major goddesses as patron deities. Athens for example.

If one takes religion to be a 1-to-1 reflection of what happened among mortals, one could arrive at the conclusion that they had a wonderfully egalitarian society.

And one would be awfully wrong.

Again, we have historical documents where a free woman is denied even the right to speak in her defense in court, because she doesn't have a husband or father to speak on her behalf. Or where a free woman could be used in a "you can screw my wife too" clause in a civil settlement between two men. It doesn't get much lower than that, really.

It's not even a Pericles-era development. It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see the same kind of mentality in Homer's work. Menelaus doesn't ask Helen if she maybe wants a divorce and to move in with Paris, he gathers a big army to basically get his property back and avenge the theft. Odysseus doesn't ask Penelope if she really really wants a new husband, he kills the suitors for daring even compete for his piece of property. _And_ hangs the twelve household maids who had had sex with them. Sounds like not the kind of hanging that breaks the neck, either, by the description of how they struggle and their feet beat the air. Based, I might add, on nothing more than the accusation of one person, who might have took it as an opportunity to dispose of some enemies, and on no more an accusation than of having been unchaste.

But, anyway, it seems to me like when society had no trouble holding the women on a leash, religion had no trouble with paying lip service to women. Didn't mean anyone actually took it seriously, anyway.

 

[AkuManiMani]

My wife Bonnie and I were talking about religion in general, and she brought up the point that it isn't only in the Abrahamic religions that put women in second place. The same is true for Hinduism, Confucianism, probably Taoism and posibly Buddhism. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

If a religion evolved in a patriarchal culture, chances are it will be patriarchal.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Education, jobs, government positions have certainly opened up to females, but....

Many women in the US don't have the right to very basic healthcare.

Why? How? Excuse my ignorance of US society but is this a discriminating thing against women only or more to do with their 'class'?

Justcharlie has written on this forum about her difficulty in accessing birth control from religious health practitioners.

See below.
But without knowing the poster, religion etc. Why would one be surprised in having difficulty in trying to get birth control from a (presumably) practicing Catholic?

Pharmacists can "opt out" of providing morning-after pills to women who've been raped, because it goes against their delicate religious beliefs that their misogynistic bossman god might have blessed the woman with the precious gift of life. (It seems his "mysterious ways" often include bringing life into the world via rape or incest, including that of 9-year old girls by their stepfathers. Poor widdle omnipotent impotent Jehovah had no other choice.)

It may not be 1960, but there are large groups of people who are trying to recreate that very time, so that women no longer have the right to control their own reproductive lives.

And if I had to be a victim of a crime, I'd much rather be a man than a woman. A male victim is almost never told that he did something wrong or was asking for it in some way.

Yes, we've come a long way, baby, but we can't just stop and relax now or take it for granted that society will continue to move forwards to even truer equality.

Forgive me here,- and please correct me if I am wrong - but they are not "rights" that you talk about. They are individuals who are either applying their rights and/or beliefs on others (perhaps unlawfully btw).

 

[patrick767]

Yes. And I think they have a point. It seems to me that western culture is in a period of transition as regards gender equality. We have yet to come to any coherent position. For now the best we can do is to allow more individual choice and try to see the consequences of those choices in all their messy complexity. We won't know for a while, I think

I don't. Objectified? Yes. Chattel? No. I realize you were talking about social conditioning, but there's an enormous difference between a culture that may lead some women to choose to dress a particular way and a culture that forces them to do so on pain of prosecution, or beatings, or worse. In countries that do the latter, they also combine that with social conditioning of course, the better to have more of the women believe that their second class place in society is justified. The oppressed are so much more compliant that way.

 

[plumjam]

When Fiona pulls the Domesday Book off her top shelf it's time to really watch your step.