|
On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real.
I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this particular tangent is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly.
|
On June 21 2013 21:52 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote:
You have not supported the assertion that women were treated "unjustly". The fact that women had a different set of rights, responsibilities, and expectations does not automatically mean these were unjust. To show this, you would have to explain how and why the differing set of rights, responsibilities, and expectations were unjust. Yes I have. If the society claims to be built upon the principle of all people being equal under law (or god, higher power, whatever), that implies the same rights regardless of gender. Justice in said society is based on this principle, according to Constitutions of many countries that have until recently overlooked (or still overlook) unequal treatment of women. Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote:
Women did not work merely to please men. The work they did was in return for the work done by men. Men risked and shortened their lives in order to provide provisioning and protection for the household. What you describe is exactly the case of women working to please men. Historically, there was no legal contract for this work. There were no laws that specified what a woman does in the household, and what a man must provide in return. Keeping the man happy was the woman's only way to secure said provisioning and protection. Obviously, the man was the ultimate judge on how satisfied he was with the marriage, and had ultimate control over how much the woman would receive in the household, and under which conditions. There was also no opportunity for women to choose a different line of work for themselves. Sometimes not even when it was necessary to do so (ie widows). Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote:
Domestic abuse of men also wasn't recognized or penalized. Historically, domestic disputes were considered a private affair rather than a legal issue. That means that a husband stabbed by his wife would similarly lack any legal recourse. And that would matter if the case of women being the dominant and abusive party in marriage were common enough to even take into consideration in this debate. As it is, it is merely a strawman, as domestic disputes being considered a private affair serves only to protect men from legal punishment for cruelty or abuse.
Modern era favours women in many legal cases, child custody, rape etc. There are definitely places where women are oppressed, ie islam predominant places and a few others but that certainly doesn't equate to women as a whole being oppressed.
How is it obvious that the man is the "final judge" as to whether or not he is happy with the marriage? You are looking at marriage from the standpoint it has to be abusive and not for mutual benefit. Yes there are abusive relationships but that is in no way indicative that women as an entirety are oppressed. If we are talking historically then the man relied on the woman just as much as she relied on him.
You also seem to be under the impression that every woman is a submissive home-making people pleaser, which actually enjoy this oppression you speak of...
And although historically women had a harder time finding jobs than men due to being less suited for manual labour, there were still plenty of jobs they could do.
|
On June 21 2013 21:52 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote:
You have not supported the assertion that women were treated "unjustly". The fact that women had a different set of rights, responsibilities, and expectations does not automatically mean these were unjust. To show this, you would have to explain how and why the differing set of rights, responsibilities, and expectations were unjust. Yes I have. If the society claims to be built upon the principle of all people being equal under law (or god, higher power, whatever), that implies the same rights regardless of gender. Justice in said society is based on this principle, according to Constitutions of many countries that have until recently overlooked (or still overlook) unequal treatment of women. Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote:
Women did not work merely to please men. The work they did was in return for the work done by men. Men risked and shortened their lives in order to provide provisioning and protection for the household. What you describe is exactly the case of women working to please men. Historically, there was no legal contract for this work. There were no laws that specified what a woman does in the household, and what a man must provide in return. Keeping the man happy was the woman's only way to secure said provisioning and protection. Obviously, the man was the ultimate judge on how satisfied he was with the marriage, and had ultimate control over how much the woman would receive in the household, and under which conditions. There was also no opportunity for women to choose a different line of work for themselves. Sometimes not even when it was necessary to do so (ie widows).
In most societies throughout history most people had absolutely NO choice in what they did. If you can show me a society (basically anywhere before the 1960s or so) where most people were free to choose their own profession, I would be very surprised.
Thus having no choice in what work you do is not a sign of suppression, at least not of women being oppressed by men (you could maybe make a point for a large amount of society being oppressed by an elite minority, but even that is dodgy).
As for equality for all, that is only really even considered since the enlightenment. Before then, equality was not considered. If something is considered unjust by today's standards, does that make it unjust by the standards of some civilization 500 years ago? Why? What makes our viewpoint today so glorious, other than that we happen to be alive today? Maybe in 500 years we will be seen as a primitive society with a barbaric moral code by whatever society is around by then.
Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote:
Further, we find that in virtually all societies, women as a class outperformed men as a class on virtually all metrics for quality of life, such as life expectancy, likelihood of successfully reproducing, treatment by legal systems, violent crime victimization rate, workplace death rate, suicide rate, homelessness rate, level of government/charitable aid, conscription, etc. If anything, the objective metrics show that gender roles have historically placed a greater burden on men. I can't see how this is relevant, as we're not talking about quality of life. If I thought it were relevant, I would question the premise that it applies in "virtually all societies" anyway. Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 20:41 sunprince wrote:
Domestic abuse of men also wasn't recognized or penalized. Historically, domestic disputes were considered a private affair rather than a legal issue. That means that a husband stabbed by his wife would similarly lack any legal recourse. And that would matter if the case of women being the dominant and abusive party in marriage were common enough to even take into consideration in this debate. As it is, it is merely a strawman, as domestic disputes being considered a private affair serves only to protect men from legal punishment for cruelty or abuse.
Actually, in most historic civilizations, a man stabbing his wife was brought to justice just as a woman stabbing her husband was. I can think of very few times when murder was not considered murder.
EDIT: at equal social "casts" at least. Generally a lord stabbing a peasant got off scott free, as did a slave owner killing his slaves.
|
On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly.
This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression.
The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed.
This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are.
|
On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are.
Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject.
Using this definition:
Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class.
|
On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class.
If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed]
And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women.
|
On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women.
He asked for a fictional example so I gave him one 
Technically it should read:
Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes than men whilst not committing more crimes than men, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class.
|
On June 21 2013 22:42 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women. Steady cowboy. He asked for a fictional example so I gave him one
Ahhh, ok. I didn't realize this thread had gone veering way off into cray-cray-land where we aren't even trying to keep it about actual things in the real world. We now have genetically engineered slaves and alternate universe fantasies.
Carry on.
|
On June 21 2013 22:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:42 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:
I suspect sunprince would refer to this post:
[quote]
I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women. Steady cowboy. He asked for a fictional example so I gave him one Ahhh, ok. I didn't realize this thread had gone veering way off into cray-cray-land where we aren't even trying to keep it about actual things in the real world. We now have genetically engineered slaves and alternate universe fantasies. Carry on.
Nothing wrong with a thought experiment, also I did quote his post in my response so if you'd read you would have understood the context, but np.
|
On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women.
Under English common law, a man killing a wife would be murder and be hanged. A woman killing a husband would be petty treason and burned at the stake.
Adultery laws have always been enforced mostly against women.
Of course in Islamic law, a woman's testimony is worth half of a mans testimony.
"Female Hysteria" is a 19th century 'disease' that men used to control unruly women. A physician once famously said a fourth of women suffered from hysteria.
Those are the examples off the top of my head. I could google more if you'd like.
|
On June 21 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:I suspect sunprince would refer to this post: On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether. I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women. Under English common law, a man killing a wife would be murder and be hanged. A woman killing a husband would be petty treason and burned at the stake. Adultery laws have always been enforced mostly against women. Of course in Islamic law, a woman's testimony is worth half of a mans testimony. "Female Hysteria" is a 19th century 'disease' that men used to control unruly women. A physician once famously said a fourth of women suffered from hysteria. Those are the examples off the top of my head. I could google more if you'd like.
I think we're generally in agreement that Islamic law is pretty oppressive of women. Most Islamic women I know are in agreement of that too.
I have to say that I have absolutely no idea of the intricacies of English common law. So I'll agree that that does seem to be evidence for a burdensome and unjust use of power on behalf of men.
EDIT: I wouldn't count female hysteria, though. Medical science being absolutely wrong about something doesn't make it an abuse of power. It was rather convenient... but so is labeling a child as having ADHD and stuffing him full of ritalin.
|
Ahh, do you see now, Reason? Now all I have to do is try to demonstrate that your example is nonfictional. Although I'm confused if I need to show all those criteria or one of those criteria.
On June 21 2013 22:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:40 Reason wrote:
I suspect sunprince would refer to this post:
[quote]
I don't think that you've managed to do that DoubleReed, certainly not in a way that convinces me. Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women. Under English common law, a man killing a wife would be murder and be hanged. A woman killing a husband would be petty treason and burned at the stake. Adultery laws have always been enforced mostly against women. Of course in Islamic law, a woman's testimony is worth half of a mans testimony. "Female Hysteria" is a 19th century 'disease' that men used to control unruly women. A physician once famously said a fourth of women suffered from hysteria. Those are the examples off the top of my head. I could google more if you'd like. I think we're generally in agreement that Islamic law is pretty oppressive of women. Most Islamic women I know are in agreement of that too. I have to say that I have absolutely no idea of the intricacies of English common law. So I'll agree that that does seem to be evidence for a burdensome and unjust use of power on behalf of men. EDIT: I wouldn't count female hysteria, though. Medical science being absolutely wrong about something doesn't make it an abuse of power. It was rather convenient... but so is labeling a child as having ADHD and stuffing him full of ritalin.
Hysteria matters. It was a legal option for men to stop their unruly wives and daughters. Remember, men have legal authority. If that's not systemic oppression then you're not thinking very pragmatically.
|
On June 21 2013 23:07 DoubleReed wrote:Ahh, do you see now, Reason? Now all I have to do is try to demonstrate that your example is nonfictional. Although I'm confused if I need to show all those criteria or one of those criteria. Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 22:59 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Please explain what needs to be shown. What would convince you? I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not. In context of this discussion: What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women. Under English common law, a man killing a wife would be murder and be hanged. A woman killing a husband would be petty treason and burned at the stake. Adultery laws have always been enforced mostly against women. Of course in Islamic law, a woman's testimony is worth half of a mans testimony. "Female Hysteria" is a 19th century 'disease' that men used to control unruly women. A physician once famously said a fourth of women suffered from hysteria. Those are the examples off the top of my head. I could google more if you'd like. I think we're generally in agreement that Islamic law is pretty oppressive of women. Most Islamic women I know are in agreement of that too. I have to say that I have absolutely no idea of the intricacies of English common law. So I'll agree that that does seem to be evidence for a burdensome and unjust use of power on behalf of men. EDIT: I wouldn't count female hysteria, though. Medical science being absolutely wrong about something doesn't make it an abuse of power. It was rather convenient... but so is labeling a child as having ADHD and stuffing him full of ritalin. Hysteria matters. It was a legal option for men to stop their unruly wives and daughters. Remember, men have legal authority. If that's not systemic oppression then you're not thinking very pragmatically.
But if the medical thinking at the time thought it was a legitimate illness, then what was actually happening was that they were trying to cure an illness, or at least minimize the effect of its symptoms.
Lets say we discover that HPV is not actually the main cause of cervical cancer. Have we unjustly burdened our female children with vaccination? Or simply acted to the best of our current medical knowledge?
|
On June 21 2013 23:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 23:07 DoubleReed wrote:Ahh, do you see now, Reason? Now all I have to do is try to demonstrate that your example is nonfictional. Although I'm confused if I need to show all those criteria or one of those criteria. On June 21 2013 22:59 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:
[quote]
I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not.
In context of this discussion:
What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women. Under English common law, a man killing a wife would be murder and be hanged. A woman killing a husband would be petty treason and burned at the stake. Adultery laws have always been enforced mostly against women. Of course in Islamic law, a woman's testimony is worth half of a mans testimony. "Female Hysteria" is a 19th century 'disease' that men used to control unruly women. A physician once famously said a fourth of women suffered from hysteria. Those are the examples off the top of my head. I could google more if you'd like. I think we're generally in agreement that Islamic law is pretty oppressive of women. Most Islamic women I know are in agreement of that too. I have to say that I have absolutely no idea of the intricacies of English common law. So I'll agree that that does seem to be evidence for a burdensome and unjust use of power on behalf of men. EDIT: I wouldn't count female hysteria, though. Medical science being absolutely wrong about something doesn't make it an abuse of power. It was rather convenient... but so is labeling a child as having ADHD and stuffing him full of ritalin. Hysteria matters. It was a legal option for men to stop their unruly wives and daughters. Remember, men have legal authority. If that's not systemic oppression then you're not thinking very pragmatically. But if the medical thinking at the time thought it was a legitimate illness, then what was actually happening was that they were trying to cure an illness, or at least minimize the effect of its symptoms. Lets say we discover that HPV is not actually the main cause of cervical cancer. Have we unjustly burdened our female children with vaccination? Or simply acted to the best of our current medical knowledge?
To me this is like asking "What's wrong with a literacy test before being given the right to vote?"
You are ignoring how laws and rules were actually used and instead just talking about a theoretical idea.
|
On June 21 2013 23:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 23:07 DoubleReed wrote:Ahh, do you see now, Reason? Now all I have to do is try to demonstrate that your example is nonfictional. Although I'm confused if I need to show all those criteria or one of those criteria. On June 21 2013 22:59 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:49 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:40 Acrofales wrote:On June 21 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 22:28 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 22:17 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 21:28 Reason wrote:
[quote]
I can't say what would convince me on either side otherwise I'd already be convinced one way or the other, which I'm not.
In context of this discussion:
What needs to be shown? How women have had power exercised over them in a burdensome, cruel, and unjust manner. You can give me nonreal examples of what could constitute women's oppression. Give me an example of oppression of women that isn't real. I was pointing out that you hadn't answered sunprince's last post in any way shape or form, which he has now done in detail for you since apparently it wasn't enough for me to simply draw attention to it. I'm not discussing this in detail with anyone, this topic is simply a learning experience for me and I will not be participating directly. This is a question you should try answering anyway. As a learning experience. Give me an example of fictional female oppression. The whole idea is that during the process of answering the question you realize that women are oppressed. This wouldn't work on sunprince, because sunprince isn't really arguing honestly. But it seems like you are. Okay, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Using this definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Since the beginning of time, women as a class have been convicted of more crimes, given harsher sentences and convicted on less substantial evidence than men as a class. If this is true, then you are probably right, but... [citation needed] And please don't bring up witch hunting in medieval Europe, because for every atrocity like that there are atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition that targeted more men than women. Under English common law, a man killing a wife would be murder and be hanged. A woman killing a husband would be petty treason and burned at the stake. Adultery laws have always been enforced mostly against women. Of course in Islamic law, a woman's testimony is worth half of a mans testimony. "Female Hysteria" is a 19th century 'disease' that men used to control unruly women. A physician once famously said a fourth of women suffered from hysteria. Those are the examples off the top of my head. I could google more if you'd like. I think we're generally in agreement that Islamic law is pretty oppressive of women. Most Islamic women I know are in agreement of that too. I have to say that I have absolutely no idea of the intricacies of English common law. So I'll agree that that does seem to be evidence for a burdensome and unjust use of power on behalf of men. EDIT: I wouldn't count female hysteria, though. Medical science being absolutely wrong about something doesn't make it an abuse of power. It was rather convenient... but so is labeling a child as having ADHD and stuffing him full of ritalin. Hysteria matters. It was a legal option for men to stop their unruly wives and daughters. Remember, men have legal authority. If that's not systemic oppression then you're not thinking very pragmatically. But if the medical thinking at the time thought it was a legitimate illness, then what was actually happening was that they were trying to cure an illness, or at least minimize the effect of its symptoms. Lets say we discover that HPV is not actually the main cause of cervical cancer. Have we unjustly burdened our female children with vaccination? Or simply acted to the best of our current medical knowledge?
Can't find much on the subject, but it seems as though it was the male answer to hormonal women.
The oppressive cure for this vile illness? A water massage. (All I could find.)
I am unclear as to what people are trying to argue here? That all women were repressed historically? Of course not. That the majority of women were oppressed? Can't prove or disprove as neither side has the evidence to back it up, citing examples of women being oppressed can likely be met with an example of males being oppressed, and either way does not prove the majority of females were oppressed.
|
On June 21 2013 23:07 DoubleReed wrote:
Ahh, do you see now, Reason? Now all I have to do is try to demonstrate that your example is nonfictional. Although I'm confused if I need to show all those criteria or one of those criteria.
I want you to convince sunprince my example is nonfictional =)
I am of the belief that he is most certainly arguing honestly and he obviously knows more than I do about this so.... let's see.
Until such time he response, if indeed he does at all, I will say this....
It seems to me you've given a few examples of unjust treatment of women in the judicial system as opposed to demonstrated proven since the beginning of time women as a group have been treated unjustly by the judicial system in comparison to men.
|
On June 21 2013 23:26 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 23:07 DoubleReed wrote:
Ahh, do you see now, Reason? Now all I have to do is try to demonstrate that your example is nonfictional. Although I'm confused if I need to show all those criteria or one of those criteria. I want you to convince sunprince my example is nonfictional =) I am of the belief that he is most certainly arguing honestly and he obviously knows more than I do about this so.... let's see.
The last time I argued seriously with sunprince, he said that African Americans were biologically less intelligent than whites due to IQ tests, socioeconomic standing, and haplogroups (this is not how haplogroups work but whatever). He somehow determined that there was enough selection pressure on African Americans during slavery with the correct pressures that he put the burden of evidence on me that African Americans were not biologically less intelligent.
I'd much rather convince you that sunprince is not arguing honestly than try to convince sunprince of anything :D
|
On June 21 2013 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 23:26 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 23:07 DoubleReed wrote:
Ahh, do you see now, Reason? Now all I have to do is try to demonstrate that your example is nonfictional. Although I'm confused if I need to show all those criteria or one of those criteria. I want you to convince sunprince my example is nonfictional =) I am of the belief that he is most certainly arguing honestly and he obviously knows more than I do about this so.... let's see. The last time I argued seriously with sunprince, he said that African Americans were biologically less intelligent than whites due to IQ tests, socioeconomic standing, and haplogroups (this is not how haplogroups work but whatever). He somehow determined that there was enough selection pressure on African Americans during slavery with the correct pressures that he put the burden of evidence on me that African Americans were not biologically less intelligent. I'd much rather convince you that sunprince is not arguing honestly than try to convince sunprince of anything :D
Well if you're defining intelligence simply as performance in IQ tests, socioeconomic standing and haplogroups then I'm guessing he was probably right?
I really don't want to get into this but it seems to me like he is open to new ideas but they aren't being brought to the table.
sunprince isn't God, if you believe my fictional example is actually real then present your argument, if you're correct he won't be able to disagree with what you've said, will he? If he does so in error then it's up to you to find the flaws in his argument and make him see that he's wrong. If you don't know enough about the topic to do that then you probably shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims. It's all up to you man  !
This goes for everyone, not just you DoubleReed.
|
I already gave some quick and dirty oppressive laws against women. Do you need more? Because I'll just be googling. You can look up "Marital Power" and "Coverture" for starters.
On June 21 2013 23:47 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 23:26 Reason wrote:On June 21 2013 23:07 DoubleReed wrote:
Ahh, do you see now, Reason? Now all I have to do is try to demonstrate that your example is nonfictional. Although I'm confused if I need to show all those criteria or one of those criteria. I want you to convince sunprince my example is nonfictional =) I am of the belief that he is most certainly arguing honestly and he obviously knows more than I do about this so.... let's see. The last time I argued seriously with sunprince, he said that African Americans were biologically less intelligent than whites due to IQ tests, socioeconomic standing, and haplogroups (this is not how haplogroups work but whatever). He somehow determined that there was enough selection pressure on African Americans during slavery with the correct pressures that he put the burden of evidence on me that African Americans were not biologically less intelligent. I'd much rather convince you that sunprince is not arguing honestly than try to convince sunprince of anything :D Well if you're defining intelligence simply as performance in IQ tests, socioeconomic standing and haplogroups then I'm guessing he was probably right?
Sunprince would never use a word ignoring it's common definition. That would be like redefining oppression... ...
|
On June 21 2013 18:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 14:10 Shiori wrote:
Literally the first Google search for subjugation is 'to be subordinate to.' You have lost this debate. Just stop talking. Women were legally subordinate to men. You can't dispute this. Stop talking as if you're standing by some high standard of evidence based argument. You take studies and twist them to an agenda using speculative rhetoric. You'd benefit from a basic primer on philosophy or sociology. Declaring yourself the winner does not make you correct. Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Note the importance of the second half of the sentence. There are many situations (e.g. government, employers, social hierarchies like family, etc.) in which someone has authority or power over you, but not all of these are unjust. In order to argue that someone is oppressed, you must not only prove that someone has authority/power over them, but that this authority or power is exercised in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Thus, if you want to make the affirmative claim that women as a class were systematically oppressed by men as a class, you must demonstrate that men as a class not only held power/authority over women, but exercised this power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. Otherwise, you are merely assuming that all authority/power is unjust, which is a different argument altogether.
Woosh go the goal posts! First you wanted me to prove that women were subjugated, but now that you've realized you don't have a leg to stand on there, you've switched to complaining about whether women were subjugated in a cruel, burdensome, or unjust manner. I've already proven this: women were subjugated in an unjust manner because their subjugation was based on false legal premises stemming from an arbitrary and baseless ontology (one example would be Christian Europe, which used St Paul's letters to assert that women were ontologically inferior to men and could not have authority on the same level). This is unjust because the reasoning is faulty i.e. because women are not actually ontologically inferior to men anymore than black people are ontologically inferior to white people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
