Talk about spouting something off without proof. I'm going to need to see proof of the part in bold, and anecdotes aren't convincing proof. I need to see some proof from a peer reviewed scientific paper supporting your claims.
http://www.today.com/money/why-marri...ated-1C8364877 Many of the men and women shes studied feel like they need to have some semblance of financial security to get married, such as a stable job or enough savings to hold an expensive wedding and reception. A surprising number of men and women also report wanting the man to have the type of job that makes him the primary breadwinner.
Oh...so you don't have any proof to back up your claims that women were chattel. That they had no choice as to who they mated with. That it's only in recent history that women have been able to choose who they mate with, and therefore my estimation of it being women who decide who they mate with is therefore historically flawed-eh???????? I see.
You obliviously didn't read the whole thing, just cherry picked the bit that you thought aligned with your own prejudice. The article is talking about AFTER marriage, not before when you try to say that women ONLY go after powerful men .. it's actually quite funny that you try to pass off this article as support for your opinion. Even the graph you posted when read with the actual article it is part of doesn't support your prejudice - http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/02/03-jobs-greenstone-looney all in all a total failure on your part.
Oh . .so you don;t actually want ti learn something, ok. http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120f02/america/marriage/ Extract - Most American treated married women according to the concept of coverture, a concept inherited from English common law. Under the doctrine of coverture, a woman was legally considered the chattel of her husband, his possession. Any property she might hold before her marriage became her husband's on her wedding day, and she had no legal right to appear in court, to sign contracts or to do business. Although these formal provisions of the law were sometimes ignoredthe wives of tradesmen, for example, might assist in runing the family businessmarried women technically had almost no legal identity. http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html Extract - 1. Arranged alliances Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage Extract - Arranged marriage is a type of marital union where the bride and groom are selected by a third party rather than by each other. It was common worldwide until the 18th century. and in case you want to try and demean the wiki link then I suggest you look at the references at the bottom of the wiki page, references that include; Jodi O'Brien (200, Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1, SAGE Publications, page 40-42 So again I say your estimation IS historically flawed.
0% of that shows me complaining about being a woman and having penis envy. The only thing it shows me is that women should have pride that they've had to put up things that men's "struggles" don't even compare to. But there's another thing as well... Because you did not answer my other question: do I have vagina envy when I complain about my balls itching? Guy gets kicked in the nuts, complains about how bad it hurts, does he have vagina envy? Older gentleman complains about erectile dysfunction: vagina envy? A kid gets testicular torsion, complains about the pain, could it be... oh I don't know... VAGINA ENVY? Do you see how your logic... fails... MISERABLY?
Uh wut???? Truthfully I think Freud's theories are almost as far out as feminist theories, but I know penis envy is something that makes feminists foam at the mouth, probably because they can relate to freud's theories because they are as far out and supported by facts and the truth as much as their feminist theories are as far out and supported by facts and the truth. So, they can relate-lol
... That makes 0 sense. That means penis envy should not have even been brought into the discussion. You may not have started it, but you were still implying up till now that penis envy is a real thing. Now you admit that it's a "far out" theory. That feminist theories may or may not be also far out is irrelevant. So we've established that penis envy is officially a strawman and can get back to the actual discussion of feminism itself.
While this is off topic, penis envy is a real thing. It's not just limited to rabid militant feminists either. It is prevalent in Europe and I think is the source of antisemitism in Europe. This theme of penis envy as antisemitism can be seen in things like operatic works of Wagner during the late 1800s. But I warn you it's kind of a wierd way to express it. Now back to our regularly scheduled topi du jour...
I wasn’t going to debate with you on this subject because I agree that females were not treated fairly in the past but neither gender was treated fairly in the past. Also, I was impressed that you attempted to provide evidence for your beliefs because this is one of the few times a feminists has attempted to provide proof for their beliefs, and you tried. That said from your own source there’s evidence that neither gender was treated well in the past. For example, in most of the cases where females did not have consent, the males didn’t have consent either and there’s even an example where it’s “particularly,” the male who did not have consent. That said, as an egalitarian and therefore not an anti-feminist, I support feminists where their arguments have merit. For example, how females were treated in the past, how females are treated in some third world countries, and slut shaming. I Have underlined all my comments to keep them separate from the excerpts from your source From your source: Although there are some examples of arranged marriages where the female does/did not have choice, even your own source says: “””””The boy and girl, were typically told to get married, without a right to consent, even if they had never met with each other until the wedding day.[18][19][20””””””] In this excerpt it says. “the spouses agree of their own free will to marry” “”””Arranged marriage should not be confused with the practice of forced marriage such as vani. In an arranged marriage, while the meeting of the spouses is arranged by family members, relatives or friends, the spouses agree of their own free will to marry.”””” In this excerpt neither the male or the female have the right to consent The boy and girl, were typically told to get married, without a right to consent, even if they had never met with each other until the wedding day.[18][19][20] In none of these examples is the female the only party who’s forced to marry without consent: • parents or guardians select, the individuals are neither consulted nor have any say before the marriage (forced arranged marriage) • parents or guardians select, then the individuals are consulted, who consider and consent, and each individual has the power to refuse; sometimes, the individuals meet - in family setting or privately - before engagement and marriage as in shidduch custom among Orthodox Jews • individuals select, then parents or guardians are consulted, who consider and consent, and parents have the power to refuse • individuals select, the parents or guardians are neither consulted nor have any say before the marriage (autonomous marriage) Child marriages are the only example of arranged marriage where the female does not consent to marry, and this is an, “extreme example” Extreme examples of forced arranged marriage have been observed in some societies, particularly in child marriages of girls below age 12. Illustrations include vani which is currently seen in some tribal / rural parts of Pakistan, and Shim-pua marriage in Taiwan before the 1970s (Tongyangxi in China). In this example it’s particularly the groom who does not have consent Certain physical disabilities increase the likelihood of arranged, even forced marriages in some parts of the world.[44][65] Okonjo claims physical disabilities in bride and particularly groom as one of the reasons for early arranged marriages in Nigeria [B]In this example, neither child has consent, neither boy or girl.[/B] “””””Tongyangxi, also known as Shim-pua marriage in Taiwanese - literally child or little daughter-in-law - was a tradition of arranged marriage, in which a poor family would arrange and marry a pre-adolescent daughter into a richer family as a servant.[95] The little girl provided slave-like free labour, and also the daughter-in-law to the adoptive family's son. This sort of arranged marriage, in theory, enabled the girl to escape poverty and wealthy family to get free labour and a daughter-in-law. Zhaozhui was a related custom by which a wealthy family that lacked an heir would arrange marriage of a boy child from another family. The boy would move in with the wealthy family, take on the surname of the new family, and marry the family's daughter. Such arranged marriages helped maintain inheritance bloodlines.[96] Similar uxorilocal arranged marriages to preserve wealth inheritance were common in Korea, Japan and other parts of the world”””””” As an egalitarean I don't believe in, "owning," anyone, but if, "owning" someone is one of your beliefs as a feminist, I strongly disagree with it
In my experience, it's only men who have penis envy. They think theirs isn't big enough or it's a funny shape.
For one I do not consider myself a feminist, what I do consider myself is a person who does not make judgements based on radical fringe elements, and I try not to make generalizations based on those radical fringe elements. I have no more time for the radical elements of feminism than I do for any other form of radical diatribe .. my whole bone of contention in this thread has been the generalization, the broad brush strokes that spread over all instead of highlighting the radicals and showing that radical nature. however the male would become the 'owner' of the female, he would actually lose less and gain more as the female was not entitled to own property or have any rights over any children.. If the woman was an only child or there were no male siblings then any inheritance she got would automatically become the property of her husband. So while it may seem that the consent issue was equal the consequences were very much in favor of the man. In reality the female had far less scope to refuse the marriage, again she was the property of her father or guardian and for her to refuse a match they had made would have been truly scandalous and lowered the standing of her family. See above on which of the couple stand the most to gain and lose. Nice .. NEVER have I said anything that could even be mistaken to mean I believe in ownership of another person, so one wonders how that thought even entered your head.
Again, if owning someone is one of your beliefs as a feminist ally, I very very strongly disagree with it.
and again your misrepresentation is so obvious. Owned - To be made a fool of; To make a fool of; To confound or prove wrong; embarrasing someone: Being embarrased. - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Owned but you already knew that was what it meant and just tried to distract from your inability to respond.
I've never heard of this scholary publication known as, "the urban dictionary," but surely you've heard of webster meriams dictionary: own [ohn] Spell Syllables Synonyms Examples Word Origin adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usually used after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership, interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive): "He spent only his own money." 2. (used as an intensifier to indicate oneself as the sole agent of some activity or action, preceded by a possessive):
so because you haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist You can try to misrepresent me as many times as you like, all it does is show your own lack of knowledge and inability to counter the arguments made and as such you have to resort to trying to discredit me ... it's pathetic.
What does female supremacy mean to you? The elements of Feminism which are unequal are tools to exert change in an already unbalanced system. In some systems you need to exert a counter force to create change. You cannot legitimately look at a few tools of change, ignore their intent, and apply the limited action of those tools as a 'hidden' agenda. It's a nonsensical assertion. No, its a qualitative assessment of their argument, and not a blanket statement to discriminate. There can be a difference, and that you do not realize it indicates your still stuck in the close minded perspective of patriarchal worldview - the very view which fights against the elements of Feminism which make you afraid of the fairytale concepts like female supremacy. Feminism does not limit what you call conservative/individualist/humanist views, it just creates the requirement for equality to be accessible to women. Something which was denied for, well thousands of years and perhaps all time still. Having equality accessible, is not a restriction, its all about removing the restriction - which goes to the point that the counter-Feminism movement is fundamentally... dumb, no matter which way they might choose to twist the argument.
So the female supremacist movement aka feminism is justified because of how females may have been treated in the past before people alive today were born???
Feminism is about breaking down barriers to equality for women, yes. It is not interested in ensuring equality for men, that is what mens rights movement should be focused on, but because they already have this they instead make up a fake argument about things like 'female supremacy' and focusing on the radical and silly elements in the pro-Feminist movement. - - - Updated - - - It's not revenge!? What a strange proposition to make.... it's about ensuring equal accessibility in the present. Some tools, like affirmative action, are inherently unequal by their action, but their action is intended to be short term, targeted and applied to specific circumstances where other means are proving ineffective in addressing established inequality. The anti-Feminist manboob brigade uses disingenuous portrayal of the reality of feminism to miscast truth to try and convince people of some wierd agenda... probably because they deep down want to see all women kept below men, well its time to grow up kiddies.... or keep playing in the mud if you like.
If the scholarly paper was on urban word usage then yes, would you quote your generalizations based on a radical minority to be the overall mindset of a whole group in a scholarly paper? BTW : This forum is not a scholarly paper. I feel sorry for you if your extent of intellect does not allow you to use the tools at your disposal in order to research things you obviously know little about, had you been able to do that it would have saved you a small amount from your embarrassment. The fact that you did not know what 'owned' meant in the context used and that a girl can be a young woman tells me that any research outside your own blinkered opinion doesn't even registrar .. The mind is like an umbrella, it only works when open, yours is permanently closed. Perhaps you would like to get back to the topic or do you wish to continue down this road of showing all your lack of actual knowledge? - - - Updated - - - Still spouting things you cannot prove I see.
So, as a feminist, you're admitting feminists don't stand for equlity. As a feminist you're admitting, Feminism only stands for equality when a percieved inequality effects women. When an inequality effects men, at best feminists don't care, such as the sentencing gap favoring women, and at the worst, feminists look at inequalities favoring women as victories, such as the gender achievement gap at universities. Therefore, feminism is not an equality movement, as many who don't know any better believe, but Feminism is a politically correct supremacist hate movement, just as the KKK was once a politically correct supremacist hate movement.
