Freedom

There are two types of freedom: freedom from something, and freedom to do something.

If you believe that your fate is conditioned by a vicious and self-serving government, you may want freedom from it. But if you have instead a constructive goal, you want the freedom to do that goal.

The first case is easier because it involves a clear enemy. The second is harder, because it does not state the reason why you would not be able to accomplish what you want. It is a matter of social approval as a whole, and not some part of society that is denying you what you seek.

MRAs talk quite a bit about false rape accusations. They do not like to talk about the relationship between casual sex and rape allegations. When men and women hook up at random, regret happens frequently. From regret come the accusations of false rape, which are unprovable as they are provable.

Statistics show that as many as 78 percent of women will engage in a hook-up at some point during their college tenure, 14 percent of whom will rely on a friend to tell them what happened the next day, 49 percent of whom will never see the partner again, and 16 percent of whom felt pressured into the sexual encounter. In a given year, roughly 97,000 cases of college campus sexual assault or date rape related to binge drinking are reported. Another 100,000 college students annually report being too drunk to know if they consented to having sex. – The Washington Post, No sex on campus?

With all that regret, bad behavior is inevitably going to follow.

Let’s look at an alternative. Traditional culture provided a ritualized courting period, after which a man married his future wife, and they generally lived together in innocence and mutual support. Many marriages were arranged, which is a polite way of saying that if your young people are confused, you go to the wisest village elders and pick some candidates for a match. Unsurprisingly, arranged marriages often last where “romantic” for-love/sex modern marriages do not. There was no illusion about sex being love, or marriage being a hedonistic pleasure. Marriage was like a battle-bond, by which a man and woman forged a family. In traditional culture, the only rapes that happened were assaults by strangers or men the women would normally not be speaking to. In our culture, the only difference between consent and rape is the degree of persuasion employed.

Our modern false rape epidemic is created by casual sex, itself a creation of feminism, itself a creation of liberalism.

When it comes down to “he-said/she-said,” there is no intelligent way to proceed, but the problem is that you’re damned either way. If you take her side, you may well be sending an innocent man to ruin. If you take his side, you may be excusing a heinous crime of personal violation. We can’t gamble with either of those outcomes.

Tradition had a better plan. Why do MRAs fear it?

MRAs are afraid of Tradition because feminists are afraid of Tradition. Tradition is patriarchy and honor. With honor comes the possibility of shame and dishonor. If no one cares and there are no consequences, dishonor — allowing yourself to be seen as weak, fearful and inept — is the easiest thing in the world. Honor requires an honor group, a group of men who will hold other men accountable, and MRAs are just as dedicated to breaking up male honor cultures as feminists are. – Jack Donovan, “Like Slipping Into a Warm Bath”

MRAs have (so far) based their game plan on creating a mirror-image of feminism and hoping to defeat it by being “more equal” than those who demand equality. The problem is that equality is never a goal in itself; you reach equality by penalizing those above the median, since you can’t force the incompetent below that median to suddenly, magically become more competent. Equality exists through penalties on the more equal.

In practical terms, this means feminism will always win out over MRA because feminism supports a group that is seen as inherently biological weaker. They will always be pitied, and men not. Men asking for pity alienates strong men and attracts weaker men. It’s a vicious cycle of failure that explains why MRM has gotten zero political traction.

Reversing feminism by imitating it offers an unlikely solution. What makes more sense is to figure out the origin of feminism, and reverse that. In the case of our modern society, that origin is a withdrawal from shared values and a leap into the world of subjective, individualistic and social forces. That is the source of the disease.

If we’re truly tired of that, we’ll seek to incorporate tradition in our plans as a solution and not a symptomatic treatment. At that point, we will be clear in our minds that we want a cure, not just a more comfortable disease.

60 Responses to “Freedom”

  1. trent13 says:

    Excellent! Better said than I could say it.

  2. id says:

    78 percent of the woman are having casual sex but only 15 percent of males are the ones that are fucking them. I have a friend i met at the gym, kid is only 21, supposedly has fucked over 86 girls..he’s probably lying, but I do know for a fact that he has had sex with many woman, he’s not attractive at all and is a serious sex addict and admits it, we went out to the club the other night and I saw him talk to this beautiful girl and before he went to talk to the next i went up to her and said “so you know shane” and she said “yeah, unfortunately”…obviously he fucked her and she regrets it, this guy gets girls with borderline rape because he’s very resolute, pressures them into it somehow, etc etc. Good post by the way, i thought i would contribute this piece of information just for the study of social-logy

  3. chris says:

    The left=slave morality. Or a more modern term for it would be victim morality.

  4. TDOM says:

    “Tradition had a better plan. Why do MRAs fear it?”

    I cannot agree with Donovan’s answer to your question. Tradition is not feared (if “feared” is the right word) by MRA’s because feminists fear it. It is disliked by both, but for vastly different reasons. In fact, feminists (at least some) view tradition as a double edged sword working both for and against them.

    The feminist position is that tradition placed limits on female behavior that were not placed on male behavior. this is why they fight against it. On the other hand, it offers a privileged status to women that feminists rely upon to advance their cause. By portraying themselves as victims, they rely on the tradition of male chivalry to gain special favor. It is a symbiotic relationship. Without chivalry, feminists wouldn’t be capable of playing the victim card and would gain very little, but due to chivalry it must exist to fight injustices to women.

    MRA’s dislike the chivalrous aspects of traditional society because feminism has eliminated any “privilege” for being male, yet still requires all the sacrifice for being male. Equality for feminism means gaining rights for women without incurring responsibilities; while eliminating rights of men without eliminating responsiblities. It is a misapplication of the concept of equality.

    The concept of equality must always be preceded by a qualifier denoting the type of equality being discussed. There are five types of equality when used in a political sense; equal rights, equal opportunity, equal protection of law, equal responsibility, and equal outcomes with the latter being a pseudoequality.

    Equal outcome is more of a mathematical concept than a political one. It assumes that both sides (male and female in this case) start out equal and should therefore end up equal. The players must be handicapped to achieve the desired outcome, therefore the goal posts are changed to accomodate the player. The other four equalities assume a level playing field where the players can play according to their abilities and interests. Extraneous factors are eliminated and the players are free to achieve according to their skill level.

    Feminists focus on the first three equalities and measure them by the fifth. MRA’s focus on the first four, the fifth being a lie in most cases.

    TDOM

  5. Like TDOM, I can’t agree with Donovan’s desire to return to traditionalism. Mainly because the reasons for traditionalism are gone.

    Society has always had a women and children first mentality, not because women were weak like children, but because women and children were bound to one another by biology, because women “produce” offspring. It was “children, and the bearers and nourishers of children first”. Men were either useful or disposable–often both.

    You have to look at the changes–not just social, moral and political–that coincided with feminism and women’s inroads into male spheres. The pill, baby formula, disposable diapers, day care, modern conveniences that reduced domestic labor, a transition from a resource and manufacturing economy (strenuous, unpleasant, dangerous jobs) to a tertiary and quaternary industry economy (safe, easy, indoor jobs), sufficient prosperity that no one was hell-bent on defending their jobs from perceived “interlopers”, and with that prosperity safer streets to walk on.

    All of these factors not only liberated women from their biology, it afforded them ways in which to liberate themselves from dependence on men. It used to be impossible for a woman to plan children around a career, because she could not control her fertility. She had to remain at or close to home because (especially among the poor) she was her children’s primary source of food for the first 1-3 years. And frankly, why would women have wanted to have careers when the majority of “marrying wage” jobs would have been onerous to them? It used to be unfeasible for women to be held financially accountable for their families, but now, she need not be accountable because our healthy social safety net will provide her with benefits to assist her in earning income, and be there to catch her and her children if she fails.

    Men were always seen as advantaged and valued because women were barred from the few high-paying, safe, indoor jobs. Those jobs were reserved for men. They were reserved for men because men had an obligation to earn a marrying wage, and if men as a group could not be held to this obligation (by, say, forcing them to compete with women who had no such obligation), a few lucky women would have been barristers, and the rest would be mining coal with babies strapped to their breasts.

    Men were given these advantages to enable them to financially support women, not because men were privileged, but because this was in the best interests of the majority of women–those who would have been hefting bricks instead of writing contracts in between sessions of breastfeeding. And just as today, men were valued as long as they were (more) useful (than women in this regard), and when they weren’t they were cut loose.

    It is not that society has changed wrt to suddenly wanting what is best for women. Society has always prioritized that. Even cultures like Afghanistan–they can’t afford to prioritize *anything* other than women’s safety, so that’s what they do. When wolves are running loose fighting over what little carrion there is, you keep the women in cages where they are safe, and leave men to fight for what scraps they can. In the west, it is that the world has changed in such a way that what is best for women is different from what it has been through most of our history.

    We’ve been looking at society through a lens that focussing on public sphere power and generation of wealth, and measuring women’s “inequality” based on that. The perceived “goal” is to generate wealth and public-sphere status, and women were in the “support role” as free domestic labor so a man could do that. But the goal of generating wealth is to provide for children, which only women could bear and nourish and over which women had no real control as to how many and when–so in reality, it was MEN who were always relegated to the support role, allowing women to do this in safety and without having to mine coal all day and come home to a load of washing, a cauldron and a laundry mangle. It was men who were indentured to women. Raising a family was really not something a woman could have ever done on her own until very recently, and none of that change has been based on changing social values, but on technology and shifting economics.

    We used to expect men to make a conscious decision to stoically go down with the ship so women and children could escape in the lifeboats. He had to be stoic, because if he wasn’t, some woman might feel sorry for him and give her seat to him. Because of this expectation, all people were conditioned to measure a man’s humanity through what he could do that a woman could not or would not wish to, and to feel as little empathy as possible for him because it’s really hard to demand someone trade their life for yours if you empathize with them. If there was room in the lifeboats, men would be allowed seats because they were good rowers, and women needed good rowers. The rest would gain honor and humanity through their deaths, which honor is deserved, for sure, but not the greatest outcome for the man in question, heh.

    But now? All the lifeboats have outboard motors. Men are only dead weight slowing the boats down, or taking up space that would be better utilized to store women’s luggage. We can let men drown even if there are extra seats in the lifeboats, because that’s just more room for a woman to stretch out her legs. And we can do this because we’ve been conditioned not to fully empathize with men and boys, because for most of human history we depended on things going exactly this way.

    The conditions that liberated women from dependence on men are not going to go away unless society falls. The cow’s been milked–there’s no squirting the cream back up her udder. Sticking to traditional male honor, as suited to humanity as it was for millennia, and as necessary and incredible and as awesome as it was, is really only embracing your objectification as a useful tool that can be thrown in the trash once you’re no longer useful, or as someone who’s expected to die so a woman won’t have to.

    There are only two ways I can see for men to rise again, and that is through refusing to participate long enough for society to fall and for women to be forced back into traditional roles, or for society to begin to see men, for the first time in history, as human beings with inherent value rather than earned value–that is, for us all to learn how to have empathy for men. And the only way to train society to empathize with men is to diametrically oppose feminism’s exploitation of the traditional “women first” dynamic that only seeks to further dehumanize them.

  6. Brendan says:

    That was fantastic, girlwriteswhat. Exactly correct in terms of what has happened and what is possible moving forward.

  7. vir says:

    @TDOM:

    The feminist position is that tradition placed limits on female behavior that were not placed on male behavior.

    They fail to note that it placed limits on male behavior as well, and that by the nature of complementary roles, each gender was giving up something in order to have a better social order. Much like a negotiation, each side gives something, and that bonds them together.

  8. vir says:

    @girlwriteswhat:

    The conditions that liberated women from dependence on men are not going to go away unless society falls. The cow’s been milked–there’s no squirting the cream back up her udder. Sticking to traditional male honor, as suited to humanity as it was for millennia, and as necessary and incredible and as awesome as it was, is really only embracing your objectification as a useful tool that can be thrown in the trash once you’re no longer useful, or as someone who’s expected to die so a woman won’t have to.

    On the contrary, as we see daily, the conditions have not changed at all. A single-parent household produces a disaster of a child. A two-parent, traditional household produces a healthy child.

    The fact that our technology has made jobs easier has not changed this either. By sending both sexes off to work, we’ve halved the salaries of each in terms of real purchasing power. And so it’s no surprise that now you live in a more dangerous neighborhood, in shoddier construction, eat lower quality food and send your kids to “education” that is barely coherent.

    Instead of rebelling against traditional roles, we should look to the logical mistake you made, which is assuming that traditional roles existed because of physical conditions. They did not and do not. And while the rest of you are busy being single parents with neurotic kids, those who have liberated their minds to see the wisdom of tradition are replacing you.

  9. Jo says:

    @girlwriteswhat: I like your second option as I see the first as impossible. Men will find it difficult to control their urge to contribute. I don’t believe chivalry is entirely cultural. There’s something innate in men which is driven to protect.
    The second option is only possible if we generate a sense of gratitude from women for men. Appreciating them, as you say, for what they are. Leaving behind the feminist stance I was taught as a child, I realise that men are not shapeless women but entirely different creatures. They have their own unique perspective which is relevant and valuable, nay, essential to us all. What they do is not nearly as valuable as who they are. This shift in perception will take much consuming of humble pie – by choice. But the outcome will improve everyone’s lot.
    Women who send their children away from them before they are adults (I mean childcare AND schools) can’t see how much they need us to love and accept their fathers. Agreed Vir, there is much to say about feminism’s abandonment of child rearing and whole families. It doesn’t take much to keep a husband. They are simple creatures really. It just needs a bit of selflessness – just like child rearing – and actively inspiring and modelling goodness – just like child rearing.
    In reality TDOM, it’s not victimhood which inspires men’s chivalry. It’s honour.

  10. @chris:

    “Victimhood” is a good way to put it. A profoundly negative term.

    @Jo:

    It seems right to me that there’s something innate in men which is driven to protect. When we’re deprived of it, we get ornery.

  11. person says:

    @vir:

    “They fail to note that it placed limits on male behavior as well, and that by the nature of complementary roles, each gender was giving up something in order to have a better social order. Much like a negotiation, each side gives something, and that bonds them together.”

    Except that unlike in a negotiation, no particular party was given the option to opt out of this compromise, especially the women. That’s what feminists didn’t like so much.

  12. person says:

    @girlwriteswhat:

    “It is not that society has changed wrt to suddenly wanting what is best for women. Society has always prioritized that. Even cultures like Afghanistan–they can’t afford to prioritize *anything* other than women’s safety, so that’s what they do. When wolves are running loose fighting over what little carrion there is, you keep the women in cages where they are safe, and leave men to fight for what scraps they can. In the west, it is that the world has changed in such a way that what is best for women is different from what it has been through most of our history. ”

    That’s precisely the problem, at least for feminists. They were valued, but not respected. (Cattle are valued too.) The way you say it pretty much says it all; in the worst cases, they were viewed as necessary solely because they were required to produce more children. They were therefore protected, but had no say in how they would be protected, no say in what type of life they would have, no say in their fate at all. I don’t know about you, but I’d trade any amount of special priority not to be “valued” like that. Feminists agree.

    • vir says:

      They were therefore protected, but had no say in how they would be protected, no say in what type of life they would have, no say in their fate at all.

      Typical leftist historical revisionism. They chose that life; that only a small minority dissented isn’t surprising. Only a small minority dissent from lock-step conformity now, it’s just that the results are worse for them. Despite these “freedoms.”

  13. person says:

    Oh really? Revisionism? I’m unaware of even a conservative historian who thinks that each person in traditional society was given a real, free choice to accept their traditional gender role, or pursue a different one. At what point was any individual, especially an individual woman, given a choice to not accept the role they were expected to fill, even the physical capacity for a choice, let alone the financial resources to make the choice or the education to know what choices were possible?

    • vir says:

      I’m unaware of even a conservative historian who thinks that each person in traditional society was given a real, free choice to accept their traditional gender role, or pursue a different one.

      That’s your revisionism speaking again. Are you suggesting that women never held jobs and lived independently, joined armies, gained education and were independent?

  14. person says:

    No, I’m not suggesting that. Are you suggesting that when they did that, it as an independent choice they were making, and they always made thr wrong one (because they weren’t accepting their role)?

    • vir says:

      You’re now incoherent.

      I’m unaware of even a conservative historian who thinks that each person in traditional society was given a real, free choice to accept their traditional gender role, or pursue a different one.

      Are you suggesting that women never held jobs and lived independently, joined armies, gained education and were independent?

      That’s gender role choice and your admission of it disproves your blanket rule.

  15. person says:

    It disproves yours too; it shows that women didn’t always willingly choose what you advocate as the ideal female role.

    So I ask again, did the women who chose a different path always choose the wrong path?

  16. Tim says:

    So I ask again, did the women who chose a different path always choose the wrong path?

    Yes.

  17. person says:

    People have waffled a bit between whether choices are made by society as a whole, or by the individual.

    When vir said:

    “They fail to note that it placed limits on male behavior as well, and that by the nature of complementary roles, each gender was giving up something in order to have a better social order. Much like a negotiation, each side gives something, and that bonds them together.”

    By saying “each gender was giving up…”, he seemed to be talking about a group as a whole making a decision.

    The feminist argument has always been that an entire gender, or other group, cannot make decision for the individual.

    When I pointed this out, vir seemed to then say that the individuals made these decisions freely as well, as evidenced by the fact that a small minority didn’t.

    Well you can’t have it both ways. If you see society as a whole making the decision, then inevitably the options of the individuals will be limited, so that while they may have the option of choosing a different path, it will come at a greater cost than conforming. Vir in other posts has shown that he is perfectly okay with that; he is against individualism in general.

    But then you really can’t turn around and argue that each individual made a free and infomed decision to live the roles encouraged (severely) by society at large. This is especially true if there is legal enforcement of the distinction, but it’s still true if it’s other types of social enforcement.

    Now when vir mentioned that some women have indeed pursued other paths throughout history, I wasn’t sure what exactly his point was, whether it was to show that individual choice was indeed possible (which is irrelevant since in such societies it was vastly more difficult than the alternative), or whether it was further that it was the right choice for those particular women.

    If it was the wrong choice, as you are saying, then the question becomes: do people have the right to make what some people might claim is the wrong choice, and with no deliberately placed obstacles to making that choice? (I don’t mean the natural consequences of those choices, but enforced restrictions on even trying to make a different choice, such as discrimination in hiring, in funding, etc.) If so, then that’s fine with me. You can continue to believe that (all) women *should* fulfill a particular role, but take no action against those who don’t. If not, then it comes down to the fact that the individuals themselves are never making the choice to enter into vir’s compromise; only society as a whole got to make that choice.

  18. Tim says:

    The feminist argument has always been that an entire gender, or other group, cannot make decision for the individual.

    This is why feminism is philosophically unsound. Women don’t compete with men for resources. Competition is, and always has been, intrasexual. Once one accepts this, all else follows.

    Women have different mating strategies than men. Where men select for cues which signal fertility, women select for cues which signal social dominance.

    The claim that women were oppressed because the political class was entirely male is a deflection from what feminism really is – a sexual strategy to separate alpha males from beta males. For example, most men did not have the vote until the early 20th century, when it was universally granted in the UK in 1918. So the claim that women alone were disenfranchised is false. We have the historical record.

  19. person says:

    >>This is why feminism is philosophically unsound. Women don’t compete with men for resources. Competition is, and always has been, intrasexual. Once one accepts this, all else follows.

    Really? So women and men don’t both need food, shelter, and clothing?

    >>So the claim that women alone were disenfranchised is false.

    And you can show me a single feminist, a single person, who has ever made that claim?

  20. Tim says:

    Really? So women and men don’t both need food, shelter, and clothing?

    Ugh. Ok, I’ll answer your question you little child. Food, shelter and clothing is provided to women by men. Men are the producers, women are the facilitators. It is a cooperative endeavor. In a direct competition over those resources, women lose, every time. In a direct competition over anything – anything – men crush women, hands down. As men derive no benefit from destroying women, we do not hold competitions. Remember: alpha males are at the top of the pack. They rule, everyone else follows.

    And you can show me a single feminist, a single person, who has ever made that claim?

    I am too lazy to do an extensive google search, but I am 100% certain you and all of us here are aware of the old canard, “bb..bb….but we didn’t have the vote for all of history…” (feminist talking)

    This is feminism 101 – “we weren’t allowed to vote”.

  21. person says:

    “Food, shelter and clothing is provided to women by men.”

    Nope, it’s a lot more complicated than that, even in the most primitive of societies. Some men (not all) produce, some women (not all) facilitate. It is indeed cooperative, but it’s not just men in one role and women in the other.

    “In a direct competition over those resources, women lose, every time. ”

    Yeah, if it was every person for themselves, women would lose, as would physically weaker men. That’s why we have socities, to recognize that physical strength isn’t the only valuable trait a human being can have. Since our society has not been organized strictly by physical strenth for some time, even when it’s been dominated by men, this argument carries no weight as one to enforce any type of hierarchy.

    “bb..bb….but we didn’t have the vote for all of history…” (feminist talking)

    This is feminism 101 – “we weren’t allowed to vote”.”

    That is what they say, and it is true, and it is quite different from the claim you attributed to them and argued against, which I will repeat:

    “So the claim that women alone were disenfranchised is false. ”

    The the difference is that word “alone”. And while it might seem like a small difference, it’s significant because it’s the only part of that straw-man claim that you argued against. Your argument was:

    “most men did not have the vote until the early 20th century”

    No feminist has ever claimed that women are the only group that was disenfranchised, so your argument against that hypothetical claim is a disingenuous straw-man tactic. Feminists have simply claimed that women were, in fact, disenfranchised, a claim you have not even tried to dispute. And that is what they work to correct.

  22. Tim says:

    Nope, it’s a lot more complicated than that, even in the most primitive of societies. Some men (not all) produce, some women (not all) facilitate. It is indeed cooperative, but it’s not just men in one role and women in the other.

    Nope, it is not more complicated you fucking tool. If men decided to, they could easily kill women. It is no contest. We have all the muscle and know-how, and it would take less than a day. Men have no interest in killing women, so we don’t it – and that is why men and women do not compete with one another. Men and women – in a direct competition – will mean the end of the human race. Therefore we cooperate.

    Competition is, and always has been, intrasexual. Team sports are an example of this. Women’s fashion and clothing are an example of this. There are myriad ways in which women compete with one another and men compete with one another, but were men and women to be in direct competition, the human race would cease to exist. It would be suicide.

    Since our society has not been organized strictly by physical strenth for some time, even when it’s been dominated by men, this argument carries no weight as one to enforce any type of hierarchy.

    It was you who stated as such when you said that men and women compete with one another. Now you’re agreeing with me? LOL. That’s right, dumbass, men and women do not compete with one another. You’re so fucking stupid you can’t even describe how we compete with one another. Not even an example. You’re a fucking joke. And a loser.

    No feminist has ever claimed that women are the only group that was disenfranchised, so your argument against that hypothetical claim is a disingenuous straw-man tactic. Feminists have simply claimed that women were, in fact, disenfranchised, a claim you have not even tried to dispute. And that is what they work to correct.

    You’ve got to be kidding me? You’re kidding, right? You think that by stating that women were disenfranchised, and strategically omitting that men were, too…that that is a valid argument? You actually believe that? If men were disenfranchised, then why even bring it up…if it is not unique to the female sex? Why is it even valid if men were also disenfranchised?

    Is it not true that by stating women were historically disenfranchised, then they are implying that it was unique to the female sex? If they were not implying this, and it is self-evident that both sexes were disenfranchised, how is that is a valid argument?

  23. person says:

    “If men decided to, they could easily kill women. ”

    I thought we agreed not to equivocate between individuals and groups. Are you talking about the hypothetical case where the entire group of men would act as one mind to destroy the entire group of women? That seems like too silly a scenario to consider, but we could also note that a group like that, acting as a single mind, can do lots of things, not just kill women. And the entire group of women acting as one mind could do quite a bit of damage too.

    The more realistic situation, that some men compete with some women, not physically but for things like white-collar jobs, is perfectly sustainable.

    “It was you who stated as such when you said that men and women compete with one another. Now you’re agreeing with me?”

    How could you possibly consture what I said as agreeing with you?

    “You’ve got to be kidding me? You’re kidding, right? You think that by stating that women were disenfranchised, and strategically omitting that men were, too…that that is a valid argument? You actually believe that? If men were disenfranchised, then why even bring it up…if it is not unique to the female sex? Why is it even valid if men were also disenfranchised? ”

    This would be a valid point if *all* men were disenfranchised, *for being men*. Of course that makes no sense, because that would mean that both genders were disenfranchised with respect to the other.

    But that’s not what you said. I quote:

    “For example, most men did not have the vote until the early 20th century, ”

    *Most* men. Not all. And the men that couldn’t vote couldn’t for other reasons, *not* because they were men.

    Women couldn’t vote specifically because they were women. There’s a difference.

  24. Tim says:

    The more realistic situation, that some men compete with some women, not physically but for things like white-collar jobs, is perfectly sustainable.

    Low-hanging fruit. No one gives a flying fuck if a male librarian competes with a female librarian for a job. *Yawn*.

    Women couldn’t vote specifically because they were women. There’s a difference.

    Do you have evidence to support this assertion, or is this just another flimsy assertion? I’m sorry, but this does not pass muster without some support. This is just as accurate were I say to say that men were denied the vote just because they were men. This is why I called you a narcissist, and then a bitch, and now a dirty little whore. Men and women were denied the vote because they were peasants, and the Industrial Revolution had not created a class of merchants. The economy demanded rough physical skills, and then of course there was the largest economic expansion the world has ever seen. That is why both men and women were given the vote, because the economy demanded it. If you have another interpretation, I am open to it. Somehow I don’t think you do, though. You little tramp.

    Bitch.

  25. person says:

    “Low-hanging fruit. No one gives a flying fuck if a male librarian competes with a female librarian for a job. *Yawn*.”

    Ok, so men and women don’t compete, except when they do, and in that case no one cares about it? Ok. Why don’t you tell me what you *do* give a flying fuck about?

    “Do you have evidence to support this assertion, or is this just another flimsy assertion?”

    Are you seriously asking me if I have any evidence to support the assertion that women were forbidden from voting, qua women, until recently? Pick up any history book about whatever country you’re interested in; in both the US and the UK, women, ALL women, couldn’t vote until the 20th century.

    “This is just as accurate were I say to say that men were denied the vote just because they were men.”

    No it’s not, because while NO women could vote until the 20th century, plenty of men could. You apparently just don’t have the facts right; to hear you say it, apparently no one was voting at all.

    “Men and women were denied the vote because they were peasants”

    What you’re implying, then, is that upper class women, rich women, *could* vote back in those days, just like upper class men could. That’s simply not the case.

  26. Tim says:

    Are you seriously asking me if I have any evidence to support the assertion that women were forbidden from voting, qua women, until recently? Pick up any history book about whatever country you’re interested in; in both the US and the UK, women, ALL women, couldn’t vote until the 20th century.

    Listen, you dirty little whore, we are talking about an episode of world history that lasted approximately 70 years, from roughly 1860 – 1930, a speck in time relative to all of human history on this planet. Only Masters and Lords were able to vote, and then they grudgingly extended the vote to lesser Lords around 1860. A few decades later, something strange happened, a middle class began emerging, something nobody had seen before. Ordinary men had a surplus of money in which to purchase a surplus of goods. The vote was then extended to them. Why? They were working outside the home, and women were not. It was inconceivable for a woman to take a position on a cargo ship or in a coal mine, as women are not as physically capable as men. It was only later, when women began working as seamstresses in factories for wages, that the vote was granted to them, but this did not happen until AFTER it had happened to men. The vote was a product of money supply, which was a product of the Industrial Revolution. Read some fucking history, bitch.

    Do you notice a pattern here, bitch? I am supporting my statements and you are not. You little whore. You cum-guzzling little whore. You say, “pick up a history book”, yet you yourself do not! You don’t know a fucking thing! You need a good raping is what you need, bitch. A long hard, hard, brutal rape.

    What you’re implying, then, is that upper class women, rich women, *could* vote back in those days, just like upper class men could. That’s simply not the case.

    Hey fuckstick, when women agitated for the vote, they got it. Ask and you shall receive. If you don’t ask, you will not receive. The same goes for men. When they agitated for the vote, they got it. Does this mean that men were oppressed, though, by other men? Yes, it does, for a brief period in time. But does it mean they were oppressed by other men…BECAUSE they were men? No, it does not. The same test holds true for women. For a brief period, roughly 70 years, women did not have the same rights as men. However, this statement alone, ipso facto, is not evidence that they were oppressed – BECAUSE they were women. The mere assertion alone is not good enough. If you cannot support this, it is insupportable, and remains nothing more than an assertion.

  27. person says:

    The pattern is much more general than that. In the US, for example, we don’t have a formal system of masters and lords, and a lot more men have been able to vote since the country’s founding, though not all; you had to own property for a while, in some states, etc.

    And it’s not just the modern era. Political power in most societies throughout history has been with men, not women, with some exceptions, queens and such, but not many.

    The pattern I notice, by the way, is that you are coming up with examples, yes, but they are not examples that support your position. Your position is that women have not been discriminated against specifically because they were women, but to support this you give cases in history where certain men were discriminated against too. That’s great, but irrelevant to the question. You seem to think that knowing about specific examples of… things, is a substitute for being able to follow a train of thought.

    I have not backed up my claims with specific sources (nor have you), though I have given examples. The reason why I haven’t backed them up is because they are common knowledge. No serious person claims that women, any women, were able to vote until the 20th century. They just weren’t. Even most traditionalists don’t deny that women have been given fewer choices throughout the ages than men; the argument is usually that this is how it should be.

    So if I am uninterested in your story about the changing economy of the British empire, it is not because I don’t know the facts; it is simply because they are irrelevant for the matter at hand.

    “Hey fuckstick, when women agitated for the vote, they got it.”

    “For a brief period, roughly 70 years, women did not have the same rights as men. However, this statement alone, ipso facto, is not evidence that they were oppressed – BECAUSE they were women. ”

    Well, it was a lot longer than that, in various places. But of course it is evidence that they were oppressed because they were women. The rule was, if you’re a woman, you can’t vote. If you’re a man, you may be able to vote, depending on other factors. It can’t be any clearer than that.

  28. person says:

    “Hey fuckstick, when women agitated for the vote, they got it.”

    Forgot to respond to this: it wasn’t that easy. I don’t know how it was in the UK, but in the US, they were asking for it at various times throughout the 19th century. There was massive opposition, and it took an amendment to the Constitution to get it through, which didn’t pass in a landslide by any means.

    And besides, if there hadn’t been discrimination in the first place, if women weren’t singled out as not being allowed to vote whereas men could (and by the time women actually got the vote in the US, ALL men could, if they were born here and of age), then they wouldn’t have need to agitate for it in the first place.

  29. Tim says:

    The pattern is much more general than that. In the US, for example, we don’t have a formal system of masters and lords, and a lot more men have been able to vote since the country’s founding, though not all; you had to own property for a while, in some states, etc.

    Prove it. It’s that simple. Prove it. I don’t believe you. That’s right. I. do. not. believe. you.

    And it’s not just the modern era. Political power in most societies throughout history has been with men, not women, with some exceptions, queens and such, but not many.

    What does this prove? I’m just going to keep asking you this until you learn to complete your thoughts. What. does. this. prove?

    No serious person claims that women, any women, were able to vote until the 20th century. They just weren’t.

    I don’t deny this. In fact, it is an historical fact. But women not being able to vote until the 20th century means nothing. It just doesn’t. That statement alone – alone – means nothing. If voting did not begin en masse until the late 19th century, why should I care that women were not able to vote until the early 20th century? This is what I am asking you to answer. Submit to me, in your own well-thought out words (not platitudes that are not your own thoughts) how this constitutes oppression. I simply do not accept the assertion alone – the assertion alone – that women receiving the vote a few decades after men – constitutes oppression. I need details and deeper understanding – and it is your job to provide it, as I am not the one making the claim – you are.

    The rule was, if you’re a woman, you can’t vote. If you’re a man, you may be able to vote, depending on other factors. It can’t be any clearer than that.

    No, it is not clear, because you haven’t shown me how life was lived then. I know the history, and I know how people lived, but this time I will not provide you with that history. I’m tired of completing your thoughts, bitch. I’ll just end with this: not being able to vote does not constitute a form of oppression. You have not provided a convincing argument, because you only make assertions. It can’t be any clearer than that.

  30. person says:

    “Prove it. It’s that simple. Prove it. I don’t believe you. That’s right. I. do. not. believe. you. ”

    I don’t have time to do extensive documentary research on this commonly known fact, but I will direct you to the 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution, which prohibit states from disallowing any *males* (not females) born in the US and of age from voting. These were passed around 1870, a full 50 years before women could vote here.

    As I said, before 1870, many men couldn’t vote; depending on the state, voting was withheld because of race, property-ownership, or other things, but it certainly was not just masters and lords, which, again, we don’t have here.

    “What does this prove? I’m just going to keep asking you this until you learn to complete your thoughts. What. does. this. prove?”

    It proves simply that feminists are not shaking their fists at windmills. There is something real that they are trying to change.

    “But women not being able to vote until the 20th century means nothing. It just doesn’t. That statement alone – alone – means nothing. If voting did not begin en masse until the late 19th century, why should I care that women were not able to vote until the early 20th century?”

    Well partly, because of the fact that when voting en masse began, there was this automatic idea that it should be extended only to the rest of the men. In the US Constitution it’s right there in the language. That kind of knee-jerk instinct to exclude women didn’t come from nowhere. It came from a deeper cultural idea that political decisions in general shouldn’t be made by women.

    “I simply do not accept the assertion alone – the assertion alone – that women receiving the vote a few decades after men – constitutes oppression.”

    First of all, stop being imprecies. Women received the vote a few decades (if 50 constitutes just a few) after *some* men got the vote. Other men had had it for much longer, since the inception of voting itself, which in the US was the beginning of the country in 1789; I don’t know how it worked in the UK.

    But even a few decades of exclusion of this sort constitutes oppression. Hell, even a *day* where the law granted a privledge to men but not women would constitute oppression. Especially if there is no day where the opposite happens: women are granted that same privledge but not men. I don’t know why you don’t see this.

    “not being able to vote does not constitute a form of oppression. ”

    That’s a bit strange. It’s a de jure, legal discrimination based on sex. That’s pretty much the definition of oppression. It’s not the only kind of oppression imaginable, and it’s not the worst, but oppression it is.

  31. Tim says:

    Well partly, because of the fact that when voting en masse began, there was this automatic idea that it should be extended only to the rest of the men. In the US Constitution it’s right there in the language. That kind of knee-jerk instinct to exclude women didn’t come from nowhere. It came from a deeper cultural idea that political decisions in general shouldn’t be made by women.

    This is still not a proof of oppression. I’m looking for proof, or evidence – evidence which is incontrovertible.

    But even a few decades of exclusion of this sort constitutes oppression. Hell, even a *day* where the law granted a privledge to men but not women would constitute oppression. Especially if there is no day where the opposite happens: women are granted that same privledge but not men. I don’t know why you don’t see this.

    I don’t recognize it because it still is not a proof of anything. It is an assertion, but nothing more. I don’t know why you don’t see this. In general, men have fought and earned their swag first, and women have come after. This is not oppression. This just means that men create, and women emulate. You have a different interpretation, one which conveniently absolves you of personal responsibility. But it is still no “proof” of oppression.

    That’s a bit strange. It’s a de jure, legal discrimination based on sex. That’s pretty much the definition of oppression. It’s not the only kind of oppression imaginable, and it’s not the worst, but oppression it is.

    You can say it, yet you cannot prove it. I ask you for an in-depth, thoughtful analysis, and you fail every time. Assertions will get you nowhere in life. Being allowed to vote a few decades after some men tells me absolutely nothing about the human race. You have to dig deeper. For instance, in a lion pride, the females do all the hunting, but the male lion gets to eat the kill first. Why should the females do all the work and the male gets to eat first, leaving the females with scraps? Is that oppression? I don’t know. I do know, however, that that is how a lion pride operates.

    Women got to vote after men. Is this oppression? I don’t know. If it is, then one needs to explain why, don’t they?

  32. person says:

    “This is still not a proof of oppression. I’m looking for proof, or evidence – evidence which is incontrovertible. ”

    How is the text of the US Constitution, complete with discriminatory langauge (males but not females), not evidence which is incontrovertible? Do you doubt that that’s what the Constitution says? Do you doubt that it constitutes oppression?

    “In general, men have fought and earned their swag first, and women have come after. This is not oppression. ”

    No, what makes it oppression is that men fight, earn their swag, and then physically prevent women from doing the same.

    “I ask you for an in-depth, thoughtful analysis, and you fail every time.”

    Analysis of what? What the word “oppression” means? I thought it was fairly clear. Oppression is the deliberate curtailing of the choices of a particular group based on a characteristic which does not justify curtailing those choices.

    “Being allowed to vote a few decades after some men tells me absolutely nothing about the human race. You have to dig deeper.”

    As I said, it’s just one example. But it’s a telling example, in that the reverse of it has never happened.

    “For instance, in a lion pride, the females do all the hunting, but the male lion gets to eat the kill first. Why should the females do all the work and the male gets to eat first, leaving the females with scraps? Is that oppression?”

    Probably not, because lions are generally not construed as having moral responsibilities. One can only be accused of oppression if one is a moral agent, who has the ability to decide what is right and wrong and choose to act accordingly. The standard assumption is that humans, both men and women, can do this, but lions cannot. Hence, anything lions do is neither moral nor immoral, and hence cannot be construed as oppression.

    “Women got to vote after men. Is this oppression? I don’t know. If it is, then one needs to explain why, don’t they?”

    I think I’ve explained why it is. It’s because the vote was deliberately, and quite precisely, excluded from women. A decision was made, pretty explicitly in the US case, to extend the vote to all *males* born in the US and of a certain age, but not the females. Like I said, if you don’t think this is oppression, then it’s hard to know how to convince you, because it looks like you have a different idea of what oppression means in the first place.

  33. Tim says:

    How is the text of the US Constitution, complete with discriminatory langauge (males but not females), not evidence which is incontrovertible? Do you doubt that that’s what the Constitution says? Do you doubt that it constitutes oppression?

    Yes I do. Discriminatory language is not evidence of oppression. You may continue to assert this, but I will always ask you to support this claim.

    No, what makes it oppression is that men fight, earn their swag, and then physically prevent women from doing the same.

    Proof?

    As I said, it’s just one example. But it’s a telling example, in that the reverse of it has never happened.

    So what does it tell, beyond that the reverse never happened, what does that tell?

    Probably not, because lions are generally not construed as having moral responsibilities. One can only be accused of oppression if one is a moral agent, who has the ability to decide what is right and wrong and choose to act accordingly. The standard assumption is that humans, both men and women, can do this, but lions cannot. Hence, anything lions do is neither moral nor immoral, and hence cannot be construed as oppression.

    This is precisely why I demand an explanation for your assertions, because there is a moral component.

    I think I’ve explained why it is. It’s because the vote was deliberately, and quite precisely, excluded from women. A decision was made, pretty explicitly in the US case, to extend the vote to all *males* born in the US and of a certain age, but not the females. Like I said, if you don’t think this is oppression, then it’s hard to know how to convince you, because it looks like you have a different idea of what oppression means in the first place.

    First you would have to demonstrate that the vote was denied to women because they were women, and for no other reason. If you can do this, then you will have demonstrated discrimination. Secondly, if you can demonstrate successfully that women were discriminated against, you would have to explain why you believe this to be a form of oppression, as discrimination itself is not inherently evil. Lastly, I think we agree on the definition of oppression, which the act of treating people in a cruel and unjust way.

  34. person says:

    “Proof?”

    Any kind of job discrimination against women serves as an example of that.

    “This is precisely why I demand an explanation for your assertions, because there is a moral component. ”

    Yes, the idea that oppression exists at all has an underlying moral assumption, that it is immoral to arbitrarily deprive certain groups of choices. If you don’t agree with this, then there can be no argument.

    “First you would have to demonstrate that the vote was denied to women because they were women, and for no other reason.”

    It was denied categorically to women, i.e., by virute of being a women, you couldn’t vote. That is a matter of record; it’s in the law. That is all I have to demonstrate, and I have.

    “Secondly, if you can demonstrate successfully that women were discriminated against, you would have to explain why you believe this to be a form of oppression, as discrimination itself is not inherently evil.”

    The alternative is to say that descrimination against women, giving men choices that are not given to women, is not evil. The justificaiton for that is a whole host of assumptions about how justice works, for example that women are rational beings, and that choices should not be taken from rational beings without some justification, etc. There’s a host of philosophy underlying it that it would be pointless to rehash here.

    “Lastly, I think we agree on the definition of oppression, which the act of treating people in a cruel and unjust way.”

    In that case, perhaps we disagree on what counts as “unjust” in this case. I think discrimination against women is unjust because it removes choices from women that they do not deserve to be deprived of.

  35. Tim says:

    Any kind of job discrimination against women serves as an example of that.

    No, it does not.

    Yes, the idea that oppression exists at all has an underlying moral assumption, that it is immoral to arbitrarily deprive certain groups of choices. If you don’t agree with this, then there can be no argument.

    I do agree with this, and that is why I await your explanation. I am still waiting.

    It was denied categorically to women, i.e., by virute of being a women, you couldn’t vote. That is a matter of record; it’s in the law. That is all I have to demonstrate, and I have.

    No, you have not proven that. Everyone agrees that women could not vote, but no one has agreed they could not vote because they were women. You have not proven this, because you cannot. The only thing you can do is fulminate. It is also true that children could not vote. Is this oppression? After all, by your logic, they were denied the vote because they were children. Were children also oppressed because they could not vote?

    I think discrimination against women is unjust because it removes choices from women that they do not deserve to be deprived of.

    I disagree with this because it is far too sweeping a statement. There is no such thing as all men -as a class – discriminating against all women -as a class. False dichotomy. The rule for almost all societies is alpha males at the top, everyone else at the bottom. Whatever alpha males want, alpha males get. It just is. It’s true that all women could not vote, and its also true that this is discrimination. However, I am not convinced it was unwise discrimination. I am unconvinced that it is oppression. I know you’ve said you felt it was, but that is useless to me. Utterly useless. Someone telling me that is giving me nothing. In other words, you have to make a case. I’m still waiting for that. Blanket assertions will not suffice.

  36. person says:

    “No, it does not. ”

    Jobs are the means to “earn one’s swag” in current society. Job discrimination = forceful prevention of a particular class having jobs. Therefore, job discrimination – forceful prevention of a certain class from earning one’s swag.

    Simple deductive argument.

    “I do agree with this, and that is why I await your explanation. I am still waiting. ”

    You apparently didn’t understand. At a certain point, there can be no explanation, no argument. The only question is whether we agree on what should be valued.

    “Everyone agrees that women could not vote, but no one has agreed they could not vote because they were women. You have not proven this, because you cannot. ”

    Yes, I have. The law was specifically formulated so that women, by virtue of being women, shouldn’t vote. Being a woman was a sufficient condition for not voting.

    “It is also true that children could not vote. Is this oppression? After all, by your logic, they were denied the vote because they were children.”

    Again, as we have both agreed, oppression is unjust discirmination. Denying children the vote is children; the question is whether it is unjust. The standard argument is that children do not have the maturity necessary to make political decisions, so it’s not unjust to categorically deny them the vote because they are children.

    This is, as argued, not so with women. Adult women are, the argument goes, just as mature and just as able to make political decisions as adult men. So it is unjust to deny women the vote. You can disagree with this, but that’s the premise.

    “There is no such thing as all men -as a class – discriminating against all women -as a class.”

    No one said that all men discriminated against all women. Those in power discriminated against all women.

    “It just is. It’s true that all women could not vote, and its also true that this is discrimination. However, I am not convinced it was unwise discrimination. I am unconvinced that it is oppression.”

    Ok, then why was it wise? Why is it just to deny all women the vote, but not all men?

  37. Tim says:

    jobs are the means to “earn one’s swag” in current society. Job discrimination = forceful prevention of a particular class having jobs. Therefore, job discrimination – forceful prevention of a certain class from earning one’s swag. Simple deductive argument.

    You said that men held women back, so I am asking you to prove it. I didn’t ask you to define ‘being held back’. I asked you to prove that men were holding women back.

    You apparently didn’t understand. At a certain point, there can be no explanation, no argument. The only question is whether we agree on what should be valued.

    You said that women were arbitrarily held back. I don’t believe they were. Therefore, I am asking you to elaborate on this claim. You must have given it some thought, so it can’t be difficult to expand on this.

    Yes, I have. The law was specifically formulated so that women, by virtue of being women, shouldn’t vote. Being a woman was a sufficient condition for not voting.

    No, you haven’t. We absolutely do not know that women were denied the vote by virtue of being women. We know that women were denied the vote, and we know that they were women, but we do not that women were denied the vote by virtue of being women. This is what I am asking you to expand upon. You may continue to assert it, but I will merely continue to ask you to expand upon it.

    Again, as we have both agreed, oppression is unjust discrimination. Denying children the vote is children; the question is whether it is unjust. The standard argument is that children do not have the maturity necessary to make political decisions, so it’s not unjust to categorically deny them the vote because they are children. This is, as argued, not so with women. Adult women are, the argument goes, just as mature and just as able to make political decisions as adult men. So it is unjust to deny women the vote. You can disagree with this, but that’s the premise.

    Good. So we do agree then, that there is such a thing as just, or wise, discrimination. We agree that those in power discriminated against all women and the vast majority of men. What we do not agree on, however, is that this discrimination formed a kind of oppression against women – uniquely. In other words, I do not believe, as I have stated over and over, that women were discriminated against arbitrarily I don’t believe the same holds for the vast majority of men, who were also denied the vote. You are the one who is arguing in favor of the notion that all women were denied the vote arbitrarily, and that this discrimination is a form of oppression that is unique to women, because they were women. I am asking you to expand on this thesis, because it is a curious one. I can wait.

    Ok, then why was it wise? Why is it just to deny all women the vote, but not all men?

    I’m not an authority on the Victorian Era, which is when this all took place, but I do know that life prior to the Victorian Era was pretty much the same as it always had been for hundreds of thousands of years. It wasn’t until the Victorian Era that anyone thought of voting. The only people who voted were Aristocrats. (By the way, I’m American. I used Masters and Lords earlier because even in early America, only landowners could vote). Everyone else was a slave, or an indentured servant. The vast majority of people owned nothing, they were paupers. Men worked, and then died. Women gave birth, and then died. That’s why I find it so funny that you seem to think women were denied access to the party, or the gala, or the ball. Only men were invited, and women were shut out. The truth is there never was a party, and there never was a gala. The Industrial Revolution hit the world and life as we knew it changed forever. Ordinary men, who are genetically advantaged to earn and make money because they are not taken out of the labor force for nine months, found themselves for the first time in history, with money. So the vote extended to some of them first, in or about 1860. Then more of them, in or about 1890. Then all of them, in or about 1920. And then finally, all women, in or about 1930. So for the entirety of human history, we have roughly a 10 year window where women were discriminated against: 1920 – 1930.

    That is my rough estimate, without being an authority or claiming to be one. I’m curious to hear your interpretation, if you have an alternate one. But once again, I want to remind you if all you do is simply assert that women were discriminated against arbitrarily, and then just walk away and leave it hanging in the air, I will be forced to ask you to expand on this, and we will go round in circles. Up to you.

  38. person says:

    “You said that men held women back, so I am asking you to prove it. I didn’t ask you to define ‘being held back’. I asked you to prove that men were holding women back.”

    Again, are you asking for documentary evidence? Or will you grant the simple fact that many men refused to hire any woman for certain jobs? Because since jobs are the means by which people gain resources, then if men deny women jobs, then they are holding women back from getting resources.

    “You said that women were arbitrarily held back. I don’t believe they were. Therefore, I am asking you to elaborate on this claim. You must have given it some thought, so it can’t be difficult to expand on this. ”

    Not arbitrarily from their point of view, I’m sure. Arbitrarily from an objective point of view. Because there’s no just reason to deny tese things to all women and any woman.

    “What we do not agree on, however, is that this discrimination formed a kind of oppression against women – uniquely.”

    Uniqueness is not required for it to be oppression; I don’t know where you’re getting this idea.

    “We absolutely do not know that women were denied the vote by virtue of being women. We know that women were denied the vote, and we know that they were women, but we do not that women were denied the vote by virtue of being women.”

    Once again: it was written into law that no woman could vote. That = no vote by virtue of being a woman. Being a woman was a SUFFICIENT CONDITION for not being able to vote. (Look that term up.) It’s as simple as that.

    “You are the one who is arguing in favor of the notion that all women were denied the vote arbitrarily, and that this discrimination is a form of oppression that is unique to women, because they were women. I am asking you to expand on this thesis, because it is a curious one. I can wait. ”

    I never said it was unique to women. You’re the one who brought up uniqueness, as if it’s relevant. It’s not. Many groups, organized by many distinguishing features, were denied the vote. The poor, black people. So: poor people were oppressed, black people were oppressed, and women were oppressed. (Yes, it is because there was no just reason to discriminate against those people either.)

    “It wasn’t until the Victorian Era that anyone thought of voting. The only people who voted were Aristocrats.”

    It was somewhat before the Victorian era, but that general time. But it was not just aristocrats. In the US, it was property owners, but not just the very top of those.

    “(By the way, I’m American. I used Masters and Lords earlier because even in early America, only landowners could vote).”

    A master or lord is not the same as a landowner, by any means.

    “Everyone else was a slave, or an indentured servant. The vast majority of people owned nothing, they were paupers. ”

    That’s an exaggeration. There were plenty of poor people who weren’t slaves or indentured servants, and who owned little, but not nothing.

    “That’s why I find it so funny that you seem to think women were denied access to the party, or the gala, or the ball. Only men were invited, and women were shut out. The truth is there never was a party, and there never was a gala.”

    I’m pretty sure I didn’t say any of that.

    “Ordinary men, who are genetically advantaged to earn and make money because they are not taken out of the labor force for nine months, found themselves for the first time in history, with money. So the vote extended to some of them first, in or about 1860.”

    You think that it was because people got money that they got the vote? Now it’s your turn to elaborate.

    “Then more of them, in or about 1890. Then all of them, in or about 1920. And then finally, all women, in or about 1930. So for the entirety of human history, we have roughly a 10 year window where women were discriminated against: 1920 – 1930. ”

    As I said, the 14th and 15th Amendments extended voting rights to all men, back in 1870, not 1920, at least de jure. Yes, there was corruption, and attempts to not allow all men to vote after that, especially Black men in the South, but they had to be sneaky about the laws, with grandfather clauses and all of that. That’s quite different from the clear exclusion of women from the de jure voting extention back in 1870.

    I’ll admit I don’t know what events you’re referring to that happened in 1890 and 1920; please tell me.

  39. Tim says:

    Again, are you asking for documentary evidence? Or will you grant the simple fact that many men refused to hire any woman for certain jobs? Because since jobs are the means by which people gain resources, then if men deny women jobs, then they are holding women back from getting resources.

    I’m asking you to tell me the historical reason why women were held back. We know women were discriminated against. We don’t agree it was unjust. So if it was unjust, I want you to tell me why that is. Resources are plentiful, so that is not sufficient. There was an extensive kinship system and no woman went without resources. So you will need to respond with a different and more compelling reason.

    Not arbitrarily from their point of view, I’m sure. Arbitrarily from an objective point of view. Because there’s no just reason to deny tese things to all women and any woman.

    There you go again! No details, no making a case, no nothing. An assertion, and then…nothing. As though that carries authority. Now do you see why I was pissed at you earlier, stupid? Why is there no just reason to deny these things to all women and any woman? Why? Why? You MUST answer this, and if not, then I will just ask you again and again.

    Uniqueness is not required for it to be oppression; I don’t know where you’re getting this idea.

    From you. You have never said that men were also oppressed. Or did you? I can’t remember. If you said it was only women, then that would be, by definition, unique to women, yes?

    Once again: it was written into law that no woman could vote. That = no vote by virtue of being a woman. Being a woman was a SUFFICIENT CONDITION for not being able to vote. (Look that term up.) It’s as simple as that.

    No, it wasn’t. The law stated that certain men could vote – landowners. Then it was extended to all men. Then it was extended to all women. But the law made no reference to sex qua sex until the 19th amendment.

    I never said it was unique to women. You’re the one who brought up uniqueness, as if it’s relevant. It’s not. Many groups, organized by many distinguishing features, were denied the vote. The poor, black people. So: poor people were oppressed, black people were oppressed, and women were oppressed. (Yes, it is because there was no just reason to discriminate against those people either.)

    And the Irish. And the Italians. Big deal. However, you are the one specifically referencing women. Let the record state that you did not use the word “unique”, but you specifically reference only women.

    A master or lord is not the same as a landowner, by any means.

    Suck my dick.

    You think that it was because people got money that they got the vote? Now it’s your turn to elaborate.

    It’s true that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, but let’s agree that universal franchise happened during the Industrial Revolution. It may not be the result, however. If you have another interpretation, let’s hear it.

    As I said, the 14th and 15th Amendments extended voting rights to all men, back in 1870, not 1920, at least de jure. Yes, there was corruption, and attempts to not allow all men to vote after that, especially Black men in the South, but they had to be sneaky about the laws, with grandfather clauses and all of that. That’s quite different from the clear exclusion of women from the de jure voting extention back in 1870.

    Women were not excluded because there was no reference to sex in the 14th and 15th amendments. You’re saying that something which had never existed, it’s very omission is a sign of discrimination. That’s ridiculous. It’s a sign of exclusion, but not discrimination.

    I’ll admit I don’t know what events you’re referring to that happened in 1890 and 1920; please tell me.

    That’s in the UK. I’m not being specific to the US because the suffrage movement happened around the same time in the English-speaking world.

  40. person says:

    “There you go again! No details, no making a case, no nothing. An assertion, and then…nothing”

    I guess what you want is a detailed catalog of the capacities of women, vs. children, vs. men, coupled with a host of ethical assumptions about when discrimination is justified in general, and why that makes it unjust to discriminate against women. I don’t have the time or resources to give you a full psychological profile or a detailed philosophical argument for why it’s unjust.

    I’ll remind you that this topic began with my defending feminists as having a legitimate case, that women had disadvantaged. I may not have convinced you that that is so, but at least I hope you see what the paramaters of the discussion are. Feminists believe that the relevant cases of discrimination against women are unjust. To know if that is in fact true, you have to look at each case in detail, yes.

    “Why is there no just reason to deny these things to all women and any woman? Why? Why? You MUST answer this, and if not, then I will just ask you again and again.”

    The burden’s on you, or anyone else who thinks there is one, to prove that there is a just reason.

    “From you. You have never said that men were also oppressed. Or did you? I can’t remember. If you said it was only women, then that would be, by definition, unique to women, yes?”

    I never said that men, as a group, were oppressed. And they weren’t. So if you mean that women were unique among the 2 sexes in getting oppressed, then yes, that is what I said. But they aren’t the only group that was oppressed.

    “No, it wasn’t. The law stated that certain men could vote – landowners. Then it was extended to all men. Then it was extended to all women. But the law made no reference to sex qua sex until the 19th amendment. ”

    Wrong. The 14th Amendment explicitly mentions sex. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

    But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the *male* inhabitants of such State,…

    “And the Irish. And the Italians. Big deal. ”

    Source on this? Unless you mean immigrants; recent immigrants still can’t vote, until they apply for citizenship. But as of the 19th Amendment, any male born here could vote, Irish, Italian, or otherwise.

    “Suck my dick.”

    Translation: Yes, you’re right, and I hate that you’re right.

    “It’s true that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, but let’s agree that universal franchise happened during the Industrial Revolution. It may not be the result, however. If you have another interpretation, let’s hear it. ”

    Coincidence comes to mind. Universal voting rights came mainly as a result of the Civil War.

    “Women were not excluded because there was no reference to sex in the 14th and 15th amendments. You’re saying that something which had never existed, it’s very omission is a sign of discrimination. That’s ridiculous. It’s a sign of exclusion, but not discrimination. ”

    How is exclusion not discrimination?

    “That’s in the UK. I’m not being specific to the US because the suffrage movement happened around the same time in the English-speaking world.”

    So what specifcially happened at each of those years?

  41. person says:

    There’s a discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy relevant to what we’ve been talking about:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/#FemAnt

  42. Tim says:

    The burden’s on you, or anyone else who thinks there is one, to prove that there is a just reason.

    The burden is never on the accused. It is you making the claim; therefore the burden is on you.

    I never said that men, as a group, were oppressed. And they weren’t. So if you mean that women were unique among the 2 sexes in getting oppressed, then yes, that is what I said. But they aren’t the only group that was oppressed.

    Could you expand upon this, please?

    But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the *male* inhabitants of such State,…

    Where is the mention of sex qua sex? That is what I am looking for.

    Source on this? Unless you mean immigrants; recent immigrants still can’t vote, until they apply for citizenship. But as of the 19th Amendment, any male born here could vote, Irish, Italian, or otherwise.

    You were listing groups that were oppressed, and those fit the bill. “No Irish need apply”. “WOP” (without papers).

    Translation: Yes, you’re right, and I hate that you’re right.

    Thank you for your capitulation.

    Coincidence comes to mind. Universal voting rights came mainly as a result of the Civil War.

    Well yes, this is what they do teach in high school.

    How is exclusion not discrimination?

    It is discrimination, but you are attempting to persuade me that it is unjust discrimination.

    So what specifcially happened at each of those years?

    Some men were extended the vote, and then finally all men were extended the vote, regardless of class or social position.

  43. person says:

    “The burden is never on the accused. It is you making the claim; therefore the burden is on you.”

    When it comes to discrimination, the burden is on the discriminator. At least that’s what the courts have held.

    “Could you expand upon this, please?”

    Of the two sex categories, female and male, the only one that was singled out as non-voting was female. That doesn’t mean that all males could vote; but when males couldn’t vote, it’s because they had other features that were singled out, such as poor, or black, or non-property-owning.

    “Where is the mention of sex qua sex? That is what I am looking for.”

    By using the word “male” as a criterion for who *could* vote, they are using sex as the characteristic that distinguishes those who are guaranteed the vote from those who are not.

    “You were listing groups that were oppressed, and those fit the bill. “No Irish need apply”. “WOP” (without papers).”

    I thought we were talking specifically about voting rights. But at the “No Irish need apply” stage, most Irish people were immigrants, anyway, so they also could not vote, but this seems sensible.

    “Well yes, this is what they do teach in high school.”

    Right, and I’m sure that was just a vast feminist conspiracy.

    “It is discrimination, but you are attempting to persuade me that it is unjust discrimination.”

    The unjust part comes in from the fact that there’s no just reason that womanhood should disqualify someone from voting. Why not? Well, because women are just as capable of understanding political issues as men, they are just as affected by political decisions as men, etc.

    “Some men were extended the vote, and then finally all men were extended the vote, regardless of class or social position.”

    Got it. I’m not up on when property-ownership was permanently removed as a criterion in the US; I think it varied by state. The 14th Amendment in theory got rid of it, but I think it remained de facto in some states for a while.

  44. Tim says:

    When it comes to discrimination, the burden is on the discriminator. At least that’s what the courts have held.

    Only if the discrimination is unjust, which you have not shown. You are trying to persuade that me the discrimination is unjust, because discrimination alone is not inherently evil.

    Of the two sex categories, female and male, the only one that was singled out as non-voting was female. That doesn’t mean that all males could vote; but when males couldn’t vote, it’s because they had other features that were singled out, such as poor, or black, or non-property-owning.

    Very well. Then what you need to prove is that females were singled out because they were female, and not because of those other factors you listed.

    By using the word “male” as a criterion for who *could* vote, they are using sex as the characteristic that distinguishes those who are guaranteed the vote from those who are not.

    No, in order for that to be true, they would have to use the words. *the male sex*, as it is *sex* that you are attempting to establish as the criterion for who is eligible to vote. The word *male* in this usage doesn’t unjustly discriminate against female, and that is what you must prove.

    Right, and I’m sure that was just a vast feminist conspiracy.

    No conspiracy. It’s just high school, that’s all.

    The unjust part comes in from the fact that there’s no just reason that womanhood should disqualify someone from voting. Why not? Well, because women are just as capable of understanding political issues as men, they are just as affected by political decisions as men, etc.

    I agree, but you have not shown that women were discriminated against on the sole basis of their sex.

  45. person says:

    “Only if the discrimination is unjust, which you have not shown.”

    The burden is on the discriminator to show that the discrimination is just.

    “Very well. Then what you need to prove is that females were singled out because they were female, and not because of those other factors you listed.”

    Nope. All I neeed to show is that females were singled out. Period.

    “No, in order for that to be true, they would have to use the words. *the male sex*, as it is *sex* that you are attempting to establish as the criterion for who is eligible to vote. The word *male* in this usage doesn’t unjustly discriminate against female, and that is what you must prove. ”

    The word “male” doesn’t mean anything other than “the male sex”. The use of the word “sex” would have been redundant. The word “male” discriminates against females; whether that discrimination is unjust depends on whether there’s a reason that female-hood should prevent someone from voting.

    “I agree, but you have not shown that women were discriminated against on the sole basis of their sex.”

    Since being a woman was a sufficient condition for not being able to vote, no other factor could have an effect.

  46. Tim says:

    The burden is on the discriminator to show that the discrimination is just.

    You were the one who initiated that they were discriminated against, unjustly. I did not. I did agree they were discriminated against, and as you remember, I said that discrimination is not inherently evil. You know it’s not up to me to prove your claim.

    Nope. All I neeed to show is that females were singled out. Period.

    You need to show they were singled out because they were female, as we both agree that discrimination is not inherently evil.

    The word “male” doesn’t mean anything other than “the male sex”. The use of the word “sex” would have been redundant. The word “male” discriminates against females; whether that discrimination is unjust depends on whether there’s a reason that female-hood should prevent someone from voting.

    There’s nothing redundant about referring to the male ‘sex’ or the female ‘sex’. You’re trying to prove this is unjust discrimination and you still haven’t done so.

    Since being a woman was a sufficient condition for not being able to vote, no other factor could have an effect.

    We don’t know that being a woman was a sufficient condition for not being able to vote, because you have not demonstrated that.

  47. person says:

    “You were the one who initiated that they were discriminated against, unjustly. I did not. I did agree they were discriminated against, and as you remember, I said that discrimination is not inherently evil. You know it’s not up to me to prove your claim. ”

    Again, you agreed they were discriminated against, and when it comes to discriminating against groups of people, it’s on the discriminator to come up with a just basis for that discrimination. It’s not up to anyone else to prove that there was no just basis.

    “You need to show they were singled out because they were female, as we both agree that discrimination is not inherently evil.”

    I need to show that it was the class of females that was singled out to show that there was discrimination. To show that it’s unjust, I merey need to point out that no just basis for such discrimination has been presented.

    “There’s nothing redundant about referring to the male ‘sex’ or the female ‘sex’. ”

    What does “male” mean, other than “of the male sex”?

    “We don’t know that being a woman was a sufficient condition for not being able to vote, because you have not demonstrated that.

    You’ve already admitted that, when you admitted that all women were denied the vote.

  48. Tim says:

    Again, you agreed they were discriminated against, and when it comes to discriminating against groups of people, it’s on the discriminator to come up with a just basis for that discrimination. It’s not up to anyone else to prove that there was no just basis.

    No, when women rallied for the vote, they actually had to prove themselves. They would never have gotten it sitting down. That’s what I’m doing here. You’re making the case, and I’m listening to you. So far you haven’t made a case.

    I need to show that it was the class of females that was singled out to show that there was discrimination.

    You need to show they were singled out because they were female, and not other factors.

    To show that it’s unjust, I merey need to point out that no just basis for such discrimination has been presented.

    You are assuming I believe that the discrimination was unjust, when I don’t. I’m still not convinced.

    What does “male” mean, other than “of the male sex”?

    ‘Male’ does not mean the same thing as ‘male qua male’, which is what you are trying to prove.

    You’ve already admitted that, when you admitted that all women were denied the vote.

    What you have yet to show, however, is that all women were denied the vote because they were women. Think of it this way. Children are denied the vote, and we could say they are denied the vote because they are children. One could then ask, “why’? Then you could say, “well, they are too young, they don’t own any property, etc etc.” And then you would say…”ahhhhh, now I get it.” You’ve said that women were denied the vote, and that alone is unjust discrimination. But it doesn’t increase our understanding, not one jot. My contention was that all those years prior to the 19th amendment, such discrimination was indeed, just. You seem to think differently. So I am awaiting your explanation.

  49. person says:

    “No, when women rallied for the vote, they actually had to prove themselves. They would never have gotten it sitting down. That’s what I’m doing here. You’re making the case, and I’m listening to you. So far you haven’t made a case. ”

    They had to prove themselves, but they shouldn’t have had to. The system as it was was unjust; that’s the point.

    And if you agree that they did successfully prove themselves worthy of the vote, then why do you need me to remind you of what their arguments were? This isn’t a debate club, it’s simply a conversation about history as far as I’m concerned.

    “You need to show they were singled out because they were female, and not other factors.”

    All I need to show is that under the law, being female was enough to disqualify a person from voting, no matter what other characteristics that person had besides being female. If I show that, which you don’t seem to be disputing, then I’ve shown that no other factors were relevant, since none could overcome the property of being female.

    “‘Male’ does not mean the same thing as ‘male qua male’, which is what you are trying to prove.”

    Yes it does. When “male” is what’s written into the law, then “male” is the feature that the law cares about. I have no idea what you could possibly have in mind that could make you doubt this.

    “My contention was that all those years prior to the 19th amendment, such discrimination was indeed, just.”

    You haven’t given one iota of a reason why it was just.

  50. person says:

    And if what you’re getting at is that women were denied the vote because they couldn’t own property, then aside from a) the fact that at certain times women could indeed own property but couldn’t vote, and b) the questionable wisdom of restricting voting to those who could own property, this just brings up another point for the feminists’ case: women were prohibited, they would argue unjustly, from owning property!

    Now, you can try to argue that it is just to prohibit women from owning property too, but once again, the burden is on you.

Leave a Reply