Just be quiet, go back to the kitchen and do whatever I say.

[Conservativation]

What do you mean the extent is overblown? Do you not see that women as a sex were in a subservient position by virtue of not having the same opportunities and priviliges as men. Women were barred from certain academic courses, certain career paths. Active discrimination prevented women from advancement within their chosen profession.

Also, the gender wage gap is still very much in existence. In your country women earn nearly 20% less then men (median weekly wage) and that was hailed as the closest the gap has ever come to closing - but interestingly not because women have become better paid, but because men have lost jobs and took pay cuts.

here are the UK Stats.....read VERY Carefully, because your Ms Harman is manipulating things horribly.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/paygap1109.pdf


Her nemesis Catherine Hakim has written a massive report debunking everything she says

From todays Telegraph even:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...st-myths-from-the-gender-equality-debate.html

 

[chaz345]

And let's not forget that this thread was started with an opening premise of minimizing the unfairness done to women in the past. .

It did? That's news to me.

I seek to minimize nothing. I QUESTIONED if perhaps one aspect of unfairness to women has been made out to be bigger than it actually was.

But the fact that asking such a question is perceived by some as an attack of some sort is, TBH, not in the least bit unexpected. Telling too.

 

[Conservativation]

It did? That's news to me.

I seek to minimize nothing. I QUESTIONED if perhaps one aspect of unfairness to women has been made out to be bigger than it actually was.

But the fact that asking such a question is perceived by some as an attack of some sort is, TBH, not in the least bit unexpected. Telling too.

\


Actually that it was seen that way is why the misconceptions are allowed to persist. You simply cannot challenge certain things, even if you have bold black and white evidence, don't you know you cannot take away one of the holy grails of feminism?

You are right, it is telling. Its telling that "conventional wisdom" is a comfy chair, ask someone to move from it and its an affront.

 

[FaithPrevails]

It did? That's news to me.

I seek to minimize nothing. I QUESTIONED if perhaps one aspect of unfairness to women has been made out to be bigger than it actually was.

But the fact that asking such a question is perceived by some as an attack of some sort is, TBH, not in the least bit unexpected. Telling too.

I didn't have a problem with the OP, but reading the bolded part, can you at least see how what you're saying would possibly be perceived as seeking to minimize. How would you differentiate between "seeking to minimize" and "questioning if it was made out to be bigger than it is"? That might help those who are questioning the intention to understand you better.

 

[Conservativation]

Yea it is kind of "seeking to minimize" isnt it. Oh well. Im not sure what's wrong with that, except, heres the difference...."seeking to minimize" means there is this thing that exists at A LEVEL, and he is trying to take the reality, and make it SEEM less, when what he is really doing is questioning the reality

 

[dorig59]

Its correct, what you say. Even in the scenario about serving food at holiday meals....TBH the families I am with at holidays still have men sitting around and women cooking and then the men clean the mess...something like that. Thats not what the point is....who serves food or whatever...and to call that master slave is specious anyway, I guess as the guy paints the house or adds a room or tends the grass, is that masetr slave? NO...its called division of labor, and it has little to do w/ the point, but man o man has it been MADE to be what its about. Goodness you cant even have a TV commercial anymore with a woman and a vacuum that someone complains.

The point was about the buck (of wisdom) stopping with the wife. Like the husband was yes served food and catered, and it was presented as if , if that didnt happen the poor idiot couldnt eat or get dressed or anything. And there was humor in that, no problem with it at all....but its been made into a symbol of oppression especially June Cleaver, feminists love to hate her.

TV aside, you betcha, there was not a man in charge on the real things in most cases....just a veneer of it. Its important to look deeper than the superficial. For every family where some idiot was a jerk over late dinner was 2 more that were the other way, where a man was grateful that he didnt have to manage the home, and easily deferred on most things while he was outside focused.....work etc. But the part to really look at is where one adult manages the other adults personal life and private time....controlling IOW. If you sit jealousy aside, because thats not a normal healthy thing....other than jealous fanatics....men just are not as interested to micromanage another persons actions, especially when those actions are not having anything to do with anything about the man or the family. Women actually do have more a micromanaging tendency...honest women will admit that, whether they are that way or not. Thats where the division of power gets a bit less straightforward. A man whose wife meets him w/ a kiss, cooks and serves, then tells him "On Saturday you will do this then this and afterwords we are going to the Smiths and on Sunday you will go help Frank with his window replacement and in the afternoon this and that.....thats also power....and its just not at all interesting to men as it is to women to do that.

Let me first say that I have only read the first page of this thread.

I agree with what Cons has said here. Where are all these subservient women being described? At least in my own family.....the women would be rolling around on the floor laughing at such an image. Apparently it exists because of the testimony of some of you. But I personally haven't seen it anywhere.

I'll admit I have micro-managing tendecies. Heck, just last night I heard myself saying to my husband, who was laying down watching TV after work: "Um Honey, you're not done cleaning the kitchen yet. And have you put salt down on the porch & sidewalk yet?"

 

[Luther073082]

Seriously Luther I would love to know the sources you have used to reach these conclusions as they pretty much fly in the face of the research I've done. Are they textbooks? If so, what primary sources do they reference? I'm not asking to be disingenous; historical evidence is food and drink to me and if I've completely missed a line of academic argument then I want to rectify it.

It does seem to me that the proposition of this thread is following a David Irving approach to history; 'we know it happened but it wasn't as bad as they say'.* I imagine if any group of people had historically been allowed no right to education, no right to make any life choices for themselves, no rights in law, and often treated and regarded as less than fully human (yes, they all applied in various degrees and over various eras; in some parts of the world they still do) they would now be entitled, and correct, to say it was appalling.

It may be questioned that this view of women's history (a relatively new phenomenon, there was little or no attention given to women's role in history until the very recent past) has been driven by a feminist agenda. Maybe that's true, though we'd have to ask who else might have bothered? And remember that feminist is not a synonym for extremist or revisionist. I, however, would also have to question what the agenda was of those who would minimise women's experience. Interesting that as women's history has emerged from the darkness that some are trying to stuff it back in!

* I'm not comparing anyone personally to David Irving, just the particular approach to this topic.

Since apparently the history of divorce is not common knowledge to you.

From a website on divorce that divorce for physical cruelty was allowed as early as the early 19th century and divorce for mental cruelty was allowed as early as the mid 19th century.

History of Mental Cruelty in a Women's Divorce Case | divorcenet.com

This source says the following

In America, the fault-based process of divorce remained mostly intact when the colonists arrived. A complete divorce-while necessary to prevent the moral complications of separated-but-married status-was possible, but very hard to get. As the 13 colonies became the 50 United States, the grounds for divorce had to be concrete, which enabled the ostensibly innocent or injured party to get relief in the form of the actual divorce. The reasons included desertion, adultery, regular inebriation and impotence, as well as the classic cruel and abusive treatment. While it was in the interest of the state to sustain marriages, the plaintiff had to come up with solid reasoning even when both parties wanted the divorce. It essentially had to be presented as a fight or fault-based case.

The History Of Divorce In The Us

Another site talks about reasons in the Roman Empire why women where allowed to divorce their husbands.

Rome in classical times before Christianization had an informal, private divorce process. Divorces could be carried out mutually by the partners. Husbands could unilaterally decide on divorce for little or no reason, announced by a letter "repudium". In 449 the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian of Rome changed the divorce law to allow penalty-free divorces to men and woman if their spouse committed certain acts (homicide, poisoning, robbery, etc). In addition, husbands were specifically allowed to divorce their wife, keep the dowry and remarry later if he could prove that she was: "(I) going to dine with men other than her relations without the knowledge or against the wish of her husband; (2) going from home at night against his wish without reasonable cause; (3) frequenting the circus, theatre or amphitheatre after being forbidden by her husband."

History of Divorce

Remember the idea that a "rule of thumb" ment a husband could beat his wife with a rod no thicker then his thumb. Completly myth.

The 'rule of thumb' story is an example of revisionist history that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their perspective on society, and they tell it as a way of winning converts to their angry creed...
The 'rule of thumb', however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. Is is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.

In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."
​

[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to to thievery or adultery. Religious groups -- especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists -- punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.

As I said before it wasn't considered honorable and it was apparently also illegal to beat your wife. It was also and acceptable reason for divorce. Though it was not well enforced because at the time privacy in family relations was considered to be extremely important. So people wheren't looking for it or asking about it.

The "Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating" Hoax

In Ancient Egypt women had close to equal rights under the law.

The legal independence and identity of Egyptian women is reflected not only in the fact that they could deal with property on the same terms that men did and that they could make the appropriate contracts in their own names, but also in the fact that they themselves were held accountable for economic transactions and contracts into which they had entered.

Divorce and remarriage seem to have been relatively easy and relatively common. There is little convincing evidence for polygamy, except by the king, but extensive evidence for "serial monogamy." Either party could divorce a spouse on any grounds or, basically, without grounds, without any interest or record on the part of the state. The vocabulary for divorce, like that for marriage, reflected the fact that marriage was, basically, living together; a man "left, abandoned" a woman; a woman "went (away from)" or "left, abandoned" a man.

The ancient Egyptian concept of adultery consisted of a married person having sex with someone other than that person's spouse. It was just as "wrong" for a man to commit adultery as for a woman. The Egyptian system was family centered, and the terminology for marriage and divorce was the same for both sexes; adultery was defined in family terms and condemned for both men and women, and sex by unmarried individuals seems not to have been a major concern

Women's Legal Rights in Ancient Egypt

But feminists will tell you that women where considered property pretty much up until the 1960's and you could just do anything you wanted to those poor defenseless women.

 

[Conservativation]

Let me first say that I have only read the first page of this thread.

I agree with what Cons has said here. Where are all these subservient women being described? At least in my own family.....the women would be rolling around on the floor laughing at such an image. Apparently it exists because of the testimony of some of you. But I personally haven't seen it anywhere.

I'll admit I have micro-managing tendecies. Heck, just last night I heard myself saying to my husband, who was laying down watching TV after work: "Um Honey, you're not done cleaning the kitchen yet. And have you put salt down on the porch & sidewalk yet?"

Right....my wife seems to not be able to stand it is she hasnt mapped my day. She has been sick and was about to aly down this weekend. She calls me upstairs as she is laying down and lists off things for me to do while she naps. i said, can you not just take the nap for petes sake....sheesh.

But thats not abnormal in any home. Its NORMAL. its from THINKING....constant thinking....it leads to micromanaging

 

[FaithPrevails]

Yea it is kind of "seeking to minimize" isnt it. Oh well. Im not sure what's wrong with that, except, heres the difference...."seeking to minimize" means there is this thing that exists at A LEVEL, and he is trying to take the reality, and make it SEEM less, when what he is really doing is questioning the reality

Well, IMO, that's even worse. Because it is a real thing. The severity of it is being called into question, as far as I can tell. But, I would like to "hear" that from him, so I know I'm thinking along the right lines.

 

[chaz345]

I didn't have a problem with the OP, but reading the bolded part, can you at least see how what you're saying would possibly be perceived as seeking to minimize. How would you differentiate between "seeking to minimize" and "questioning if it was made out to be bigger than it is"? That might help those who are questioning the intention to understand you better.

To be totally honest, I don't see how I could have been much more clear than my last paragraph. I specifically said I was questioning, not asserting. I also in that same paragraph specifically said that women had not always been treated fairly.

And to be brutally blunt, no I can't see how someone can HONESTLY see what I said as seeking to minimize, not if they read all of what I wrote. I can see how someone who has to a degree already decided what I'm going to say before reading it, or someone so entrenched in the current "conventional wisdom" could see it that way though.

To put it a different way, I suppose that I can see how that one sentence that you referenced could be seen that way, but not how the post as a whole can be. IOW if people read ONLY what I wrote and ALL of what I wrote, no I can't see how it can be perceived as minimizing anything.

 

[chaz345]

Well, IMO, that's even worse. Because it is a real thing. The severity of it is being called into question, as far as I can tell. But, I would like to "hear" that from him, so I know I'm thinking along the right lines.

Not the severity, the extent or prevalence. The aspect I was specifically questioning was the relatively recent(2 to 3 generations ago) idea that women were expected to cook and clean and feed and then shut up and let the man run things with no "interference" from her. I am questioning wether or not that really was the widely accepted norm that it is now portrayed to have been.

 

[Conservativation]

Well, IMO, that's even worse. Because it is a real thing. The severity of it is being called into question, as far as I can tell. But, I would like to "hear" that from him, so I know I'm thinking along the right lines.

Not sure how me posting would hamper your ability to "hear from him"....but, OK.

Yea sure its real....its real at SOME level. Its even STILL real. Lots of things exist that are bad, at what level do we formulate an entire worldview about things?

He is challenging the level that actually existed, vs. the conventional wisdom of saying simple "women experienced xyz". Its unfair anyway because there were other positives that went with the negatives and thats what boils the whole thing down anyway, the desire to eliminate the bad but keep the good.

Then, once a level IS established, thats when minimizing would occur, minimizing being something like for example, "yea 4 out of 10 had it that way but it wasnt all that bad"....that would be minimizing. He was talking about the reality of the prevalence.

Note: That I answered in no way hinders his ability to answer, so, no need to tell me that you still want to hear from him.

 

[Captivated]

Since apparently the history of divorce is not common knowledge to you.

From a website on divorce that divorce for physical cruelty was allowed as early as the early 19th century and divorce for mental cruelty was allowed as early as the mid 19th century.

History of Mental Cruelty in a Women's Divorce Case | divorcenet.com

This source says the following



The History Of Divorce In The Us

Another site talks about reasons in the Roman Empire why women where allowed to divorce their husbands.



History of Divorce

Remember the idea that a "rule of thumb" ment a husband could beat his wife with a rod no thicker then his thumb. Completly myth.





As I said before it wasn't considered honorable and it was apparently also illegal to beat your wife. It was also and acceptable reason for divorce. Though it was not well enforced because at the time privacy in family relations was considered to be extremely important. So people wheren't looking for it or asking about it.

The "Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating" Hoax

In Ancient Egypt women had close to equal rights under the law.







Women's Legal Rights in Ancient Egypt

But feminists will tell you that women where considered property pretty much up until the 1960's and you could just do anything you wanted to those poor defenseless women.

Since apparently you don't understand what constitutes a valid academic source or realise that just about anyone can post anything on the internet .... there's just one article there that I would recognise as of academic standing, the one about equal rights in Egypt. That is very interesting, comes from a reputable source and can be verified. I note that the author remarks on the disparity between the legal rights and social standing of Egyptian women, the latter being very much bound up with men. If, however, I quoted any of the other sites regarding divorce in a piece of academic writing I'd be in trouble. They are of unknown authorship and don't quote sources. The article on the 'rule of thumb' is similar - no footnotes citing sources, although the author is a recognisable name - and doesn't deal with wife-beating as much as questions the origin of the phrase 'rule of thumb'. Even in this article the author recognises that anti-wife beating legislation was passed by a only minority of states in the US by the 19th century and was at various times and places 'indifferently enforced'. The passing of legislation opposing wife-beating would suggest that it was going on, otherwise why the need for it? How many centuries of wife-beating would be too many by your reckoning? Even if, as the article suggests, legislation existed to prohibit it by the 1700s that seems like 17 too many to me (not counting BC of course).

 

[Luther073082]

Since apparently you don't understand what constitutes a valid academic source or realise that just about anyone can post anything on the internet ....

Most of those sources cite sources

there's just one article there that I would recognise as of academic standing, the one about equal rights in Egypt. That is very interesting, comes from a reputable source and can be verified. I note that the author remarks on the disparity between the legal rights and social standing of Egyptian women, the latter being very much bound up with men. If, however, I quoted any of the other sites regarding divorce in a piece of academic writing I'd be in trouble.

Most of those I belive are citeable.

They are of unknown authorship and don't quote sources.

Most have the author's name on them and have source documents at the bottom. Just because they don't have "in-text citations" doesn't mean they lack sources.

Where are your sources??? Where or where are your great citeable academic sources? (Preferably something I don't have to travel to the Library of Congress to read.) So far you havn't even given me a Wikipedia article.

The article on the 'rule of thumb' is similar - no footnotes citing sources, although the author is a recognisable name - and doesn't deal with wife-beating as much as questions the origin of the phrase 'rule of thumb'. Even in this article the author recognises that anti-wife beating legislation was passed by a only minority of states in the US by the 19th century and was at various times and places 'indifferently enforced'. The passing of legislation opposing wife-beating would suggest that it was going on, otherwise why the need for it?

Of course its been going on. For years, the question is if it was considered acceptable by society. It wasn't considered acceptable by society or the laws wouldn't have existed.

How many centuries of wife-beating would be too many by your reckoning? Even if, as the article suggests, legislation existed to prohibit it by the 1700s that seems like 17 too many to me (not counting BC of course).

The question is not if domestic abuse happened. It happened, and it always will happen. Problems like these don't just disappear. The question is if it was considered acceptable by general society. And I've proven western society for a long time considered it unacceptable.

Where are your academic sources that show that everyone was just cool with domestic violence?

 

[Conservativation]

Since apparently you don't understand what constitutes a valid academic source or realise that just about anyone can post anything on the internet .... there's just one article there that I would recognise as of academic standing, the one about equal rights in Egypt. That is very interesting, comes from a reputable source and can be verified. I note that the author remarks on the disparity between the legal rights and social standing of Egyptian women, the latter being very much bound up with men. If, however, I quoted any of the other sites regarding divorce in a piece of academic writing I'd be in trouble. They are of unknown authorship and don't quote sources. The article on the 'rule of thumb' is similar - no footnotes citing sources, although the author is a recognisable name - and doesn't deal with wife-beating as much as questions the origin of the phrase 'rule of thumb'. Even in this article the author recognises that anti-wife beating legislation was passed by a only minority of states in the US by the 19th century and was at various times and places 'indifferently enforced'. The passing of legislation opposing wife-beating would suggest that it was going on, otherwise why the need for it? How many centuries of wife-beating would be too many by your reckoning? Even if, as the article suggests, legislation existed to prohibit it by the 1700s that seems like 17 too many to me (not counting BC of course).

Is there a point to this? Is anyone an advocate FOR wife beating?
Im so weary of things being used as leverage because they happened. Yep they still happen, and guess what, they will until Christ returns. We have the laws, we have the programs, we basically do what can be done and prosecute when its not prevented (in the west anyway). But its a worn out trump card as relates to us, here and now. If we took each and every social pathology and attempted to exploit it as some women do this one we'd be each of us in straight jackets.

What is truly the point is arguing if it existed and if and when the laws were passed? The only thing I can see that affects us TODAY is the feminist attempts to leverage history into even more shadow boxing and windmill tilting.

 

[Captivated]

No, sorry, none of the articles on divorce quote sources.Two have them have authors but neither of them have any credentials at all that I can verify online. None of them, apart from the Egyptian article, are citeable. I don't believe by posting what you have that you've proved anything. Certainly I'll dig out my research paper and let you have the sources I used but don't ask unless you're really interested because I'm in the middle of a doctorate as well as working and running a home and have very little time to spare. Too much of which goes on posting on CF alas! My research was on gender and social change in Victorian Britain so the sources I used will require some digging around in to find what it is you are particularly interested in.

(My sources will include lots of book titles and journal articles; do you have an Athens log-in or similar to access the latter online? I'm afraid the books would require a trip to the library; very few, if any academic titles are available in full text online. BTW, I wouldn't quote wikipedia if my life depended on it!)

 

[Captivated]

Is there a point to this? Is anyone an advocate FOR wife beating?
Im so weary of things being used as leverage because they happened. Yep they still happen, and guess what, they will until Christ returns. We have the laws, we have the programs, we basically do what can be done and prosecute when its not prevented (in the west anyway). But its a worn out trump card as relates to us, here and now. If we took each and every social pathology and attempted to exploit it as some women do this one we'd be each of us in straight jackets.

What is truly the point is arguing if it existed and if and when the laws were passed? The only thing I can see that affects us TODAY is the feminist attempts to leverage history into even more shadow boxing and windmill tilting.

Actually I agree to a point. Except that being aware of what happened in the past should inform our present and future. So we have, as you say, the laws and the programmes because we are aware of the wrong things that used to happen and don't want to perpetuate them.

And for me it's about integrity of research too. I'd be arguing for proper sources whatever the topic.

 

[Luther073082]

No, sorry, none of the articles on divorce quote sources.Two have them have authors but neither of them have any credentials at all that I can verify online. None of them, apart from the Egyptian article, are citeable. I don't believe by posting what you have that you've proved anything. Certainly I'll dig out my research paper and let you have the sources I used but don't ask unless you're really interested because I'm in the middle of a doctorate as well as working and running a home and have very little time to spare. Too much of which goes on posting on CF alas!

At least one of those had a list of sources at the bottom if you care to look.

I got an A or a B on most of my undergraduate research papers citing similar sources. Never had a professor tell me that my sources where bad.

And yes I'd like to see some sources that are semi-accessable that where written in the last 5 years that discounts anything that I've said. The reason I say the last 5 years is its only recent scholarship that has managed to break some what free of the feminist stranglehold over historical research.

If you are going to call me a liar, then please prove it.

Actually I agree to a point. Except that being aware of what happened in the past should inform our present and future. So we have, as you say, the laws and the programmes because we are aware of the wrong things that used to happen and don't want to perpetuate them.

And for me it's about integrity of research too. I'd be arguing for proper sources whatever the topic.

You also have to consider things such as access and time. I don't have time nor the desire to go to the library to find books to back an internet post. Plus most people then don't have the time to go check if those books even exist or not.

Seeming how at least one of those sources that you discount came from a divorce website I would say that the source is reliable.

This isn't a research paper.

 

[Captivated]

At least one of those had a list of sources at the bottom if you care to look.

I got an A on most of my undergraduate research papers citing similar sources.

And yes I'd like to see some sources that are semi-accessable that where written in the last 5 years that discounts anything that I've said. The reason I say the last 5 years is its only recent scholarship that has managed to break some what free of the feminist stranglehold over historical research.

If you are going to call me a liar, then please prove it.

Then please show me which article had a list of sources at the bottom because I did care to look, several times, and couldn't find any. Seriously, you used sources such as personal articles by unverifiable authors and lawyers advertising pages in a research paper? Wow, we'd be kicked off the course quicker than we could say 'wikipedia'!

If you want sources from the last five years then we are likely talking journal articles. As I said you'll need an Athens login or similar, academic journal articles are rarely available free of charge in full text unless you have one. Do you? Otherwise I really would be wasting my time. (Although if you are likely to accuse any sources that disagree with you as toeing some sort of feminist party-line then I'd probably be wasting my time anyway.)

Oh, and show me where I called you a liar. I merely asked you for sources and then questioned the veracity of the sources you provided. Maybe you are being a little over-sensitive?

 

[Conservativation]

Actually I agree to a point. Except that being aware of what happened in the past should inform our present and future. So we have, as you say, the laws and the programmes because we are aware of the wrong things that used to happen and don't want to perpetuate them.

And for me it's about integrity of research too. I'd be arguing for proper sources whatever the topic.

and once "proper sources" were mentioned then....thats it?