My Theory About Why Feminism is Currently Irrelevent to Millenials

[loramin]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

loramin you may be born into a white privlaged family (like most socialists) but for most of us, the ref has not been throwing the game for.

So quit it with that bullshit cus all you're doing is making feminism irrelevant to menials by continuing this clearly false narrative.

Brilliant logic Mick: because other forms of inequality exist in our society, feminism is irrelevant and a "false narrative" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Only half?

For most of history basically everyone has been property. Slowly more people became land owners (mainly men) which granted them a degree of self determination (and political rights).

People talk about how raw deal women got, but it was only a very narrow period where non-land owning men had any significant political or social power before female entitlements also began to arise.

I'm no expert on early human societies or anything, but I'm pretty sure even peasant men had some serious power disparities over peasant women.

But, I mean, you are right: human history is the story of more and more people being enfranchised over time, and that includes both men and women. I just think it's more than a little naive to argue that the two have been progressing at the same rate when there is a wealth of historical knowledge to the contrary.

[Jimjam]

If you are saying peasant men had serious power disparaties over peasant women then you are right, the two are not progressing at the same rate; women have progressed faster.

For modern 'peasants' both work bottom tier jobs at the same wage; minimum. And women have better parental rights, so even if they had started at the same base level women have progressed faster.

I think this feeds into mick's point that fixing class, etc, issues will be a bigger boon to most women that working on gender specific issues.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are saying peasant men had serious power disparaties over peasant women then you are right, the two are not progressing at the same rate; women have progressed faster.

For modern 'peasants' both work bottom tier jobs at the same wage; minimum. And women have better parental rights, so even if they had started at the same base level women have progressed faster.

You have a very romanticized (read: not accurate) view of the past:

Originally Posted by Divorce in Medieval England: From One to Two Persons in Law

Given the centrality of child support and custody to modern disputes, what is most astonishing about the medieval records of divorce is that they do not echo these aprenhensions: the court documentation rarely even acknowledges the existence of children.
...
The overriding assumption here is that there is no evidence of custody award in the event of a divorce, because custody automatically went to the father.

Women in medieval times were also disadvantaged economically, so "both work bottom tier jobs at the same wage" was not in fact true:

Originally Posted by https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval-england/medieval-women/

Within a village, women would have done many of the tasks men did on the land. However, they were paid less for doing the same job. Documents from Medieval England relating to what the common person did are rare, but some do exist which examine what villages did. For reaping, a man could get 8 pence a day. For the same task, women would get 5 pence. For hay making, men would earn 6 pence a day while women got 4 pence. In a male dominated society, no woman would openly complain about this disparity.

...

In medieval towns, women would have found it difficult to advance into a trade as medieval guilds frequently barred women from joining them. Therefore, a skilled job as recognised by a guild was usually out of reach for any woman living in a town. Within towns, women were usually allowed to do work that involved some form of clothes making but little else.

On top of all that they were also disadvantaged in many other ways:

Originally Posted by https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval-england/medieval-women/

The law, set by men, also greatly limited the freedom of women. Women were

not allowed to marry without their parents’ consent
could own no business with special permission
not allowed to divorce their husbands

could not own property of any kind unless they were widows

could not inherit land from their parents’ if they had any surviving brothers

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have a very romanticized (read: not accurate) view of the past:



Women in medieval times were also disadvantaged economically, so "both work bottom tier jobs at the same wage" was not in fact true:



On top of all that they were also disadvantaged in many other ways:

yeah well what about Bofa?

[Jimjam]

I didn't say peasant women had it less bad than peasant men.

I said the modern equivalent have equal pay now (minimum wage).

Ergo women's rights among this group have outpaced those of men.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have a very romanticized (read: not accurate) view of the past:



Women in medieval times were also disadvantaged economically, so "both work bottom tier jobs at the same wage" was not in fact true:



On top of all that they were also disadvantaged in many other ways:

In economic times where agriculture formed the basis of all production and surplus, where labor was an asset, perhaps having societies that forced women into reproductive relationships was advantageous to human survival and societal order? In other words, could the motivation behind inequality, PERHAPS, have been pragmatism as opposed to men imposing dominion? I'm asking rhetorically. I know the right answer but I suspect you don't

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In economic times where agriculture formed the basis of all production and surplus, where labor was an asset, perhaps having societies that forced women into reproductive relationships was advantageous to human survival and societal order? In other words, could the motivation behind inequality, PERHAPS, have been pragmatism as opposed to men imposing dominion? I'm asking rhetorically. I know the right answer but I suspect you don't

Obviously other things matter to humans than equal rights for all ... things like (for instance) the survival of the species. And obviously it's idiotic to impose modern values on medieval times.

But I didn't include all that because I wanted to shit on medieval people: I did it because I care about the present, and the past impacts the present. A lot of the anti-feminist arguments here stem from a lack of knowledge about the way the world has been. You honestly can't (or at least I can't) fault someone for having a bad opinion if that person doesn't have all the facts, so I'm just trying to battle ignorance with facts.

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ergo women's rights among this group have outpaced those of men.

Ok, sure, but ... let's say we're on a staircase. I'm on step 1, but you're on step 100, and I go from step 1 to step 50 while you go from step 100 to step 101. I've absolutely made more progress than you: that's true. But at the same time, that doesn't mean we're equal, because I'm still 51 steps behind you.

Women are still not equal in our society, and feminism is still far from irrelevant.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok, sure, but ... let's say we're on a staircase. I'm on step 1, but you're on step 100, and I go from step 1 to step 50 while you go from step 100 to step 101. I've absolutely made more progress than you: that's true. But at the same time, that doesn't mean we're equal, because I'm still 51 steps behind you.

Women are still not equal in our society, and feminism is still far from irrelevant.

Thats dunkey cok man u advocate reparations

[Jimjam]

Mate, I was just pointing out that it wasn't just people of one gender that were property (it was most).

And that the working class didn't get to vote until the same time as many women. And that females have better parental rights, and that there is no pay discrimination for minimum wage employment.

I wasn't saying we live in an equality utopia, so I don't know why you try to refute my posts from that angle.

Indeed I acknowledged there is plenty of discrimination and addressing these issues will improve equality for women even when the inequality for women might not stem from gender issues.

I think there is some talking past each other as each time I try to narrow the conversation to specific points (ownership of people and modern equivalents to peasant workers) you broaden the scope to be about all women again.