Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 15th, 2016, 07:26 PM   #501

VHS's Avatar
VHS
Viable Human Solutions
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Human habitat of Canada
Posts: 2,399

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Dog View Post
Human behaviour is surely most strongly influenced by human circumstances and the inevitable (until recently) strengths of both sexes.

A pragmatic division of labour. Men do not have babies and cannot care for them anyway in a primitive society. God forgot to fit him with boobs. And why send a woman out to hunt or farm when there's a much stronger man sat on his butt?

Yes, long before we became human, the two sexes' roles had diverged somewhat. Male chimps (and chimps generally) give us a glimpse of what we must have been like and, to an extent, no, it's not changed as much as some think.

I doubt that humanity, for most of its history even as anatomically modern man (between 66 and 40 thousand years or so) could afford ideology such as "chain her to the kitchen sink". No: IF men learned some kind of contempt for women, then it was almost certainly the same kind of tunnel vision feminists inflict upon us with their "thoughts" about men: namely, the inability or unwillingness to see what the other sex do, to value it and recognise it. Today, even (and especially) feminists devalue "traditional" women's roles and forget that the vast majority of women throughout the greatest part of history always worked.

In the past, the division of labour was the best of a bad job. Most of it was physical, but even for the mental part, I have never seen any real example of a female with a talent for innovation. Almost everything was invented by males. An uncomfortable fact, but one must remember, it was only invented by a certain kind of male: not all men are inventive. But males are and I believe always have been more curious about how things work than women are. Women are generally more curious about how people work. Aren't both approaches valid?

This in no way devalues women unless you inflict the cardinal sin of judging by male standards, as so many feminists do. Women have plenty of skills of their own, easily as worth celebrating as any of their male counterparts. Any man who has to do all of the cooking, likes to live in a pleasant home etc should never underestimate these feminine skills. They probably contribute as much to human civilisation as much as anything.

But I draw the line when my missus wants to put up curtains and put cushions everywhere in my brewery or shed....
Just use a simple example: the relatively soft female voice, which is characterized by the singing of singers such as Teresa Tang (鄧麗君)or Rimi Natsukawa (夏川りみ).

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Softness is not necessarily weakness in this case.
VHS is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 16th, 2016, 12:51 PM   #502

Tammuz's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Munich
Posts: 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetropo View Post
To have any idea what society was like back then, we have to observe recent stone age societies. Not as Margaret Mead did, who was laughed at by the South Sea islanders behind her back. Aboriginal societies are not matriarchal, not matrilineal. The women do the work while the men have discussions. Women grind grain, men go hunting and warring. Men behave badly. Human behaviour hasn't changed much.

Still not convinced?
Well, not really. It´s problematic to compare modern with Paleolithic societies. First of all, war wasn´t practiced in the Paleolithic, at least, there is no evidence of warlike activities in those times. According to archaeological evidence, warriordom sprung up not before the 5th mill. BCE. Moreover, modern hunter-gatherers have knowledge of male fertility. This seems not to have been the case among Paleolithic people, since sexuality became a cultic issue not before the Neolithic, that is, not before the invention of cattle breeding, when humans in their dealing with cattle for the first time got knowledge of the dependency of biological fertility from sexuality. To get such knowledge was in earlier times practically impossible, because females had children only every four years, since the nursing period lasted so long. How could they get the idea that sex makes children if they copulated every day? A relation between daily sex and childbirth every four years was not discernible. Only when cattle breeders experienced that female animals remain childless when not paired with male animals, the penny dropped.

A quoted passage from Gerhard Bott, The Sanctification of Sexuality in the Neolithic and Paternity:

Quote:
As we previously saw there is no indication at all that the fecundity or fertility​ of the Great Mother had ever been related to sexuality during the Paleolithic: There is neither a sacred representation of a phallus nor of an ithyphallic fertility​-god nor of a sexual act of a human pair. This is a highly remarkable but scarcely noticed fact: All archeological findings indicate that a causal relation between sexuality​ and

fertility had not yet been realized, as is shown by the record that, indeed,​ female fertility habeen considered and represented as sacred, but never sexuality.

Not until the Neolithic we observe a change, remarkably during Mode II. (see chapter VIII). I refer to a highly significant archeological record from the Natufien culture, created by populations which settled in the whole area of the Near East: A stone sculpture, about one meter high, from Ain Sakhri in to-day´s Jordan, manufactured​ shortly before 8,000 BCE, represents, for the first time in human history, a sexual act of a human pair.
This demonstrates a very essential fact: The perception of human sexuality had changed. The sexual act had gained a new aspect and importance in human consciousness: It was realized as a behavior beyond a bare fleshly need and henceforth was perceived as a sacred act.

This Natufien culture, originator of the earliest sanctification of sexuality and the concomitant recognition of paternity, settled also in the southeast of Anatolia, leaving​ its traces shortly after 10,000 BCE in the settlement Catal Hüyük which was still small at that time. Probably, the Neolithic population of Gobekli Tepe likewise either belonged to the cultural horizon of Natufien or maintained contact to the representatives​ of that culture who lived in immediate neighborhood. It is

very interesting​ that in Gobekli Tepe, on excavation level II (that means, according to the published age determination of excavator K. Schmidt, about 8,000 BCE, and thus simultaneously with AIN SAKHRI), a stone sculpture representing an ithy-​ phallic fertility-god was found on the Tepe.


It is of utmost importance that 9 centuries after the beginning of the Neolithic Mode II (see chapter VIII) the first artefacts were manufactured, clearly represent-​ ing a sanctification of sexuality and, concomitantly, of paternity combined with an

appearing​ ithyphallic god. From this close archeological-historical context we see how fast a consciousness-altering insight, as was the interrelation of sexuality and fertility, diffused.
For a psycho-historian it is evident that, after thousands of years, human con-​ sciousness had undergone a historical change: For 40,000 years the homines sapi-​ entes had manufactured artful representations of sacred motifs, but only since 8,000 BCE sexuality becomes a topic.

A behavior of such delightful relevancy in human existence only now has been found worthy to become a subject of artful, actually in an undeniable sacred man-​ ner; for it shows neither any biologic-animalistic nor any voyeuristic feature. The fact that the historical implications of this prominent archeological record have, as yet, barely been recognized and made an object of reflections, but have rather been ignored, is supposedly due to the undesired conclusions which have to be drawn and which I draw, conclusions, which are felt as abhorrent by the Primordial Father-fold. What else could be the reason for the surprising sanctification of sexu-​

ality than the overwhelming​ insight and understanding of the causal relation of sexuality and fertility by learning that the sexual act, although not a sufficient con-​ dition of pregnancy and fertility​ of a woman, is nevertheless a necessary one and

consequently a necessary condition​ for the fecundity of the Great Mother, as well. About 1,000 years later a similar sacred sculpture of a sexual act as well as of

the act of giving birth were manufactured in Catal Hüyük, illustrating the interrela-​ tion of both events.

Around 8,000 BCE we are, for the first time, facing the archeological record that the traditional familiar sculptures of the ancient fertility-goddess, many thou-​ sands of which have been excavated, become supplemented by artefacts representing a procreating​ coitus.​

Last edited by Tammuz; December 16th, 2016 at 12:58 PM.
Tammuz is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 01:52 PM   #503

Aineias Taktikos's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: United States of America
Posts: 814

There is nothing wrong with feminism. It is vilified by those who seek to oppress women.
Aineias Taktikos is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 02:45 PM   #504

Isoroku295's Avatar
Priapus
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: In the Past
Posts: 8,389

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aineias Taktikos View Post
There is nothing wrong with feminism. It is vilified by those who seek to oppress women.
There are sone impressive, sizable posts here.

And then there is the one guy who bluntly calls everyone a misogynist. This is part of an increasingly common trend. A trend of generalizing people and defining them by a small, easily disregarded subset. As is usual wih this tactic, it is an over simplification. Not everyone who disdains 3rd and 4th wave femenism is trying to oppress women.

Do try to actually discuss the matter respectably, rather then throwing around these childish accusations.

Last edited by Isoroku295; December 17th, 2016 at 02:47 PM.
Isoroku295 is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 03:53 PM   #505

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 9,950
Blog Entries: 2

That's right. If you oppose a middle class ideology that oppresses both men and women (see above) then you must be a misogynist.

If feminism is so wonderful, how come there's so many miserable, dissatisfied and overworked and oppressed women about?
Black Dog is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 04:12 PM   #506

Fox's Avatar
Fox
散木
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Korea
Posts: 3,380

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Dog View Post
If feminism is so wonderful, how come there's so many miserable, dissatisfied and overworked and oppressed women about?
Perhaps it's simply because there aren't enough women in positions of ostensible power yet. Once half (or more, because more is always acceptable) of all board rooms, legislatures, CEO positions, and head-of-state positions are filled by women, then surely the average female will be perfectly satisfied to work shuffling papers, checking out customers, or watching more successful women's children for a pittance. And if they aren't, well:


Click the image to open in full size.
Fox is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 04:18 PM   #507

Isoroku295's Avatar
Priapus
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: In the Past
Posts: 8,389

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox View Post
Perhaps it's simply because there aren't enough women in positions of ostensible power yet. Once half (or more, because more is always acceptable) of all board rooms, legislatures, CEO positions, and head-of-state positions are filled by women, then surely the average female will be perfectly satisfied to work shuffling papers, checking out customers, or watching more successful women's children for a pittance. And if they aren't, well:


Click the image to open in full size.
First they had race traitors. Now Gender traitors. That is true sexism. Sexism of the highest order. And its disquised as feminism.
Isoroku295 is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 06:29 PM   #508
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 426

Instead of speculating, people should study actual palaeolithic cultures of modern times. They certainly did have tribal wars, as well as judicial means of resolving minor ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
zoetropo is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 06:46 PM   #509

VHS's Avatar
VHS
Viable Human Solutions
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Human habitat of Canada
Posts: 2,399

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoroku295 View Post
There are sone impressive, sizable posts here.

And then there is the one guy who bluntly calls everyone a misogynist. This is part of an increasingly common trend. A trend of generalizing people and defining them by a small, easily disregarded subset. As is usual wih this tactic, it is an over simplification. Not everyone who disdains 3rd and 4th wave femenism is trying to oppress women.

Do try to actually discuss the matter respectably, rather then throwing around these childish accusations.
Many people agree that 3rd and 4th wave feminism have derailed a lot.
When I posted the "ideal" girl's magazine cover, some people shout.
Click the image to open in full size.

The ideal girls' life magazine signifies today's vision for girls and women: empowerment by focuses on education, positive thinking, realization of potentials, and general health.
VHS is offline  
Old December 20th, 2016, 01:23 AM   #510

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 9,950
Blog Entries: 2

Very true, Fox. And if Hillary Clinton and Madelaine Albright are prime examples of "women helping women" then women are better off with "nasty old patriarchy". Which, apparently (and against all evidence I've seen in this life) is " men helping men".

Funny how it's only bad when men do it. Except, they don't.

VHS: that's what feminism fails to accept. Nobody stops girls and women from taking an interest in anything. There is no social prohibition against a woman picking up a magazine aimed at a male audience. The fact that most diverse publications are aimed at men is precisely because they're the ones who buy such publications. If there was a market for females, the publishers would be quick to fill it. Capitalism comes before ideology

But let's face it. Men's interests are incredibly diverse. Magazines reflect this. But women's Magazines are almost always about being women, or celebrity nonsense or fashion and domestic interests. That's OK, it's up to them. I'd like to sit in the pub and discuss, for instance, P90 versus PAF humbucker guitar pickups with a woman, but I'm not expecting to.

On the other hand, women don't usually understand men's minor obsessions (see above) and this must dissapoint some of them.

What really drives me mad is when feminists pretend that women's interests are just as diverse and it's merely that men stop them from pursuing such interests.

And, the contradictory notion that men are bad but women must do as men do in order to achieve or become a success.

I've known legions of male motorcyclists, guitarists, photographers, beer brewers, mechanics and many other things who would have been delighted if their womenfolk had taken an interest. But the overwhelming majority simply don't. That's life.
Black Dog is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
dirty, feminism, word



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Steven Pinker defends Equity Feminism and criticizes Gender Feminism Sharks And L0ve Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 6 March 10th, 2017 06:04 PM
Word for word translation of Livy's description of triplex acies OctaBech Ancient History 2 March 7th, 2017 02:02 PM
Is "Orientalism" still a dirty word? timdog General History 12 May 27th, 2011 07:52 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.