the quote you quote was taken from the site i linked it to: not my words, although i do agree with what was said.
proof is dodgy ground whether one is a believer or not: you cant prove a negative such as "God does not exist", but there is no evidence whatsoever that he does.

Well fortunately for you, the argument that 'scholastic men have historically feared women and their power' (X-ray vision, perhaps?) is not in fact a negative, and you should be able to show evidence if there is any. If there is not any, it does not mean "you can't prove a negative," it means your premise is bullshit.

prove it.

I wonder if these were the same scholastic men that came up with the idea that women reading too much would burn out their brains? Or that it simply wasn't sensible to allow women to be involved in politics, medicine or science, because their natural temperament precluded reason?

hmm ... we could let you rule everything every 3 weeks or so with a week off?! :p

*grins*

I just watched "The DaVinci Code" last night. It was peppered with some interesting historical tidbits, especially the "war on women" in the 2nd millenium. It even includes a discussion of the Malleus Maleficarum, a sort of "Idiots Guide to Witch Hunting".

From Wikipedia

Since the surviving evidence for even early Paleolithic, let alone any preceding hominid time, is a few rough cobble tools not far removed from natural rock fracture anyway, and that there is no trace of such complex, 20th-century social thought or theory -- id est, nothing to read -- I suspect the conclusion about their social mores is drawn from the air, not the science.

Umm.....2nd millenium isn't paleolithic. Plenty of written sources from the 2nd millenium. Or are you talking about something else?

When you have two distinct groups, there will be competition for power.
When the difference between the two is, one has weapons and the other has boobs, the weapons rule.
Fortunately the boobs have enough power to keep the weapons from getting completely out of hand.
And so it goes. :cool:

What if one group has weapons and boobs?

masturbation! ;)

Naw, Pink Pistols. :D

lol

*bites tongue*

Pussy. :p

damm' right.... and I intend to keep my gonads.....

:lol:

I am; the early Paleolithic -- maybe two million BC.

I see. out of interest, remind me what that was in response to?

Post #60, quoting a little of post #45 which I thought dubious. #45's on p. 3.

Ahhh..Gotcha :) thanks, I did scan for it, but must have skipped over it:P

Nooo no, not everything, back then. NOW, yes, despite feminism--which we desperately needed, by the way:

http://www.office-humour.co.uk/g/i/3796/

Blue the date on that is from 1955, when the typical role of a woman was to be the homemaker. Today's dual income society has created a situation where women are not only allowed, but mostly expected to generate and income. For good or bad.

If the result is that women aren't expected to be their husband's namby pamby ass-kissing slave, I'd say that's good.

People don't have to be two income families for the most part: people choose it for a number of reasons...a big house, nice cars. Keeping up with the Joneses.

And, some women LIKE to work. :cool:

yesman, you might have misunderstood me--which is understandable, because my punctuation often sucks. I'll try to clarify my point...

a) 500, 1000, and more years ago, there were many societies that were female-dominated.

b) Today, more than the opposite is true. Most societies are male-dominated--look at business, government, religion, law enforcement, military.

c) Yes, the Good Housekeeping feature was dated 1955. Yes, most married women were expected to only be housewives, but there's some extra frightening shit in that article. That's why I said we desperately needed feminism, to get people out of that sado-masochistic circle of hell.

d) So today, women are in the workplace in great numbers, whether it be for single or dual incomes. And they don't have some mainstream magazine telling them they should sit tight when their hubby's out all night, and smile sweetly when his cheatin' drunky-ness comes home in the morning. These were the results of feminism. However, see b).

Well I couldn't do it, I guess that was my fault though for not making enough money to support 5 people. Either way, I have NO PROBLEM with women working if they want to, but around here anyway, it seems that you really need two incomes just to get by in relative comfort.

Hence me saying "for the most part." I agree that it's hard to get by these days, but we are creatures of comfort.

When you said "my fault for not making enough money" it made me sad; I have gotten into arguments with people on here before who have implied that by working hard you will make more money, as if people who don't make a lot of money don't work hard. I am a living example that's not true, and I hope you know I meant no offense in my statement about working families. I'm guessing you're a pretty good guy who takes care of his family any way he can. :)

Cite? :confused:

Shawnee, No offense taken. I spent too much time working harder instead of smarter. I also learned how unappreciated all my efforts were. Since that realization, I only work one job and make more than when I had three and I no longer have the "unappreciated one" sucking the life outta me :)

Didn't you know? It's feminist conventional wisdom. That there is no documentable evidence of this it's because:

1) Scribes and historians and archeologists are primarily male and have a male-dominant agenda to fulfill.

2) Matriarchal societies did not have an alphabet or keep written records. The alphabet killed the Goddess, as every good feminist knows.

(am obliquedly PO'd, RE: wolf, RE: citing "the alphabet that killed the Goddess" for evil purposes; i.e. her own)

And, Ahmen:


WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO STRESS INCONTINENCE, EH?

Amongst loads of other questions we nutty women have.



wolf always surprises me. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a lunar-driven animal :wolf:

wolf--you goddess-less traitor!

[patience]

now I understand the true, spiritual meaning of the She-Wolf who once sustained Romulus and Remus so as they could become a greet nashonz; for LO:

[patience]

and am, at once, inconsolable, RE: wolfs' surrender; and obvious feminist treachery.

And, hell, didn't I write more than that?

anyhoo---"the alphabet Goddess" is worth a read; no matter what your local Romulus says.

For my part, if you are enough of "something" to be labeled that thing you are a bit nuts and have lost grasp on reality.
I just cannot think of a belief system that I adhere to. Other than atheism and Buddhism, which is really a non-belief other than the belief that we want what is best at our core and nothing more.
I say I am a Libertarian but do not believe in a completely unregulated economic and environment policy.
To be a feminist I would have to think of women as "different" than men. Sure, they function differently in many ways because of physiological differences, but we all have those. Even one man from another. That means nothing in the work place.
Everyone deserves to be paid the same for the same job with the same experience/education... that is just fair, does not make me, or anyone else, an "ist".
The only goddess I ever see is the one in my bed...

Damn rkzenrage, I find myself agreeing with you too much. I find that very scary.

Where I work, women are paid the same. :p

its easy to recognise that there are far less women in high-powered jobs than there are men, and its fair to assume that there are women who could do those jobs as well as men, but dont get the chance or have to work much harder at getting there
Rob you nailed it for me again.

My question is, how many women aren't TRYING to get to those jobs and positions due to stereotyping?

Probably a few, though I suppose many women have resigned themselves to the fact and just try anyway. Kind of a "oh yeah? Watch ME buster!"

Where I work, we have seen the "Old Girls" network (as opposed to the Old Boy's network women lamented for so long.) We're supposed to have come a long way, baby, not fashioned ourselves after male corporate mentality.

But, these are tough women, tougher than I, so I don't begrudge them their accomlishments. I just wish we had kept our "kinder, gentler" ways. :rolleyes:

Oh bullshit. I know lots of women who are succeeding in the business world just fine. Yes, there are women out there who are capable of doing the high-powered jobs who are not doing them, just like there are additional men who could be successful in that realm if they wanted to be--but they aren't because they don't want to be working in those jobs.

Griff, for example, is a very intelligent, level-headed man with a strong air of quiet leadership, but he instead chooses to work with autistic children. Clearly he is being held back.

I was told throughout my educational years that I was refusing to live up to my potential, and instead of going to medical school I thought it would be much more fun to have a job making videogames and then drop out of career-land and have a whole slew of children. Obviously I just wasn't given the chance to get my MBA.

To assume that if they aren't there it must be because they're being held-back is condescending, and projects your values on everyone else. Which is ironic, since I'm sure if asked, you would say there is of course far more to life than being a high-powered business executive. But if other people decide the same, "it's fair to assume" they must be oppressed. Maybe women are just a lot smarter in general, and that's why they avoid the executive rat race.

Would you say it's fair to assume that the number of women "who could do those jobs as well as men, but dont get the chance or have to work much harder at getting there" is less than two?

Given the population of the US, no, I'd say it's fair to assume there are at least two women who got unfairly shafted in their legitimate hopes of being high-powered executives. Just like I'd also say it's fair to assume there are at least two women who have been promoted to high-powered executive positions when there were more skilled men who didn't get a fair chance at the job.

If you're going to defend broad statements with even broader statistical probabilities, then why bother making a point at all? I felt it was fair to assume Phil meant a relatively large number of women weren't being given chances or were being forced to work much harder for the same opportunities. If I was wrong, then forgive me, and we can all make his type of meaningless arguments together--for example, I'll say it's fair to assume that "there are [at least two] women" who would have been excellent air traffic controllers, but were denied that opportunity because they lost their eyesight in a tragic childhood accident. The air traffic controller industry is so unfair!

whats a feminist???

now thats what i call wishful thinking.
it is a fact that women ARE held back by the old boy network, the private mens' clubs, the businessMENS associations, etc., so dotn you fuckin dare call me condescending. I spent 8 years working for the rights of Prostitiute women and I've witnessed first hand the prejudices women face when trying to get a foot on the ladder. and if you bothered to read my previous posts, you would realise that I believe in a CHOICE for men and women: stay at home and play home-maker if thats what you want, anyhting else is oppression / suppression.


http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1983369,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/gend...172256,00.html

you just sit there in your kitchen thinking about what food to prepare for the evening .... and little kittens playing with balls of wool, as a woman should. :rolleyes:

I said WHATS A F**KING FEMINIST???:mad:

Dictionary.com

You may also want to look into some Prozac.

Belonging to movements and ideas which advocate the rights of women to have equal opportunities to those possessed by men.

Right now I'd define it as "someone who is telling you to shut the fuck up, get out a dictionary, and try not to be such an ass the next time you come around here." Idgit. Sheesh, from what hills did you roll out?

Yes, I'm sure the prostitutes you were helping were being held back because they were women, and not because of low socioeconomic status, unfortunate circumstances, or working in an illegal profession.

I'm glad you support everyone's right to choose their own future. And for all I know, the "businessmen's" associations in Wales are discriminatory and sexist. But I disagree that it is the same in the US.

many of the women were educated, nurses, university students, but stereotyping always takes precedence.

i apologise for writing with anger in my previous post, but i get protective about my client group.

prostitution is not illegal in the UK (or Wales)

That's an interesting answer, but a better answer is, "read more history books," because there is documentation.

Cite. :cool:

Just research Native American, African and Chinese cultures--there's plenty of stuff out there taught in anthropology classes. :rolleyes:

Is it really that hard to believe that many cultures had matriarchal societies?

To a man it probably would be. Don't be too hard on them, they can't help it. ;)

I don't know about worldwide, but in Western Europe, after the 'fall' of Rome, the pagan cultures were mainly pre-literate, they memorialised their world in sagas and oral traditions. Then the Christianising missionaries introduced the written word (including the development of several alphabets to allow dissemination of holy texts in the vernacular). The problem was not just that the people writing were men......more specifically they were monks and clerics. Unless you stretch way back into the Roman Empire, the only written sources for much of the 'dark ages' and early medieval period in Europe are religious in character, and that religion had what modern tastes would consider to be a strange attitude to women.

Added to that is the fact that such writing recorded only hagiographical, rather than sociological history: the vast majority of men and women were not accounted for by such works. Unless one was a member of the ruling elite, either secular or ecclesiastical, then one was unlikely to ever be mentioned in those texts.

In classical antiquity, writers recorded natural history and observation, military campaigns, plays, comedies, tragedies etc etc. The introduction of the written word with Christianity, was a much more narrow affair. Given that in many areas women were generally, by default, of a lower societal value than men, and that the peasant class (which consitituted the majority of the population) was of a lower social class than the kings/chiefs/lords they lived under, it stands to reason neither would feature heavily in hagiographical texts. (there are of course exceptions)

During the classical period, women were written about as indeed were Goddesses. It wasn't the written word that killed the Goddess....it was the proumulgation of holy texts.



That said, I may well read that book. I am prepared to be proved wrong on this.

Incidentally, just as an aside:

We've talked a lot on these boards about the effect of religion on womens' social roles. We've also talked a good deal about the different types of religion, including that of Islam.

So, here is a quick run down of how Islam responded to women, in its earliest guise.

From the Qur'an, describing the day of judgement:

The buried infant, the victim of infanticide, would normally have been a girl. By banning infanticide, the Qur'an increases the value of girls in the eyes of the faithful and gave girls and women a new dignity. Though it allowed for polygyny, it limited this to four wives at one time and stipulated that they be treated equally (a serious improvement on the status quo)It mandated dowries and offered some females inheritence rights. Even the practice of men and women praying separately was a later addition (8th Century).

No, it's neither hard to find or believe. They have reoccurred repeatedly, throughout history, and have but one thing in common....they're all history....they all failed.
All the matriarchal societies have fallen by the wayside because they couldn't sustain themselves, couldn't defend themselves. Sure, they might have been progressive, nurturing, peaceful, utopias....but that doesn't do them a bit of good if they can't fend off aggressive neighbors. Blame the neighbors all you want, it's still the reality of history, none of them strong were enough to survive.:smack:

And the neighbors were aggressive, marauding, egocentric males, so it's really no surprise. :cool:

The more things change...