Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

Stop waking up then. Duh.

[Reelya]

His posts age well, but it's impossible to have a productive argument with someone who keeps editing literally for hours, adding substantial paragraphs.  If I argue with a snapshot, it looks like I'm the asshole for ignoring all his strongest arguments.  I know this is a sore subject, and I don't believe it's done maliciously, but I have to agree that it's a frustrating and unfair tactic.

Hence why I'm not actually having a back and forth about it. I'd rather get all my thoughts on a topic together in one post than have an even more unproductive back-and-forth about half-formed ideas that can easily be taken out of context and turn into a flame battle, which would in fact be a huge derail in a thread like this.

EDIT: I have to point out that the jab that I was saying "women's suffrage was unneccessary" seemed kinda straw-manny and very unfair. I prefer to avoid any sort of back and forth and keep all my thoughts to a single post, since that kind of stuff seems to happen all the time here. It's hardly any sort of constructive argument when people are twisting each other's words into the worst possible interpretation.

[MrRoboto75]

Stop waking up then. Duh.

I've been trying that, rather unsuccessfully.

[Teneb]

His posts age well, but it's impossible to have a productive argument with someone who keeps editing literally for hours, adding substantial paragraphs.  If I argue with a snapshot, it looks like I'm the asshole for ignoring all his strongest arguments.  I know this is a sore subject, and I don't believe it's done maliciously, but I have to agree that it's a frustrating and unfair tactic.

Hence why I'm not actually having a back and forth about it. I'd rather get all my thoughts on a topic together in one post than have an even more unproductive back-and-forth about half-formed ideas that can easily be taken out of context and turn into a flame battle, which would in fact be a huge derail in a thread like this.

EDIT: I have to point out that the jab that I was saying "women's suffrage was unneccessary" seemed kinda straw-manny and very unfair. I prefer to avoid any sort of back and forth and keep all my thoughts to a single post, since that kind of stuff seems to happen all the time here. It's hardly any sort of constructive argument when people are twisting each other's words into the worst possible interpretation.

In that case Reelya, wouldn't it be better if you were to post it all at once instead of editing it in piecemeal?

[bloop_bleep]

Actually, for the majority of human history, men and women were essentially equal, or even in some cases, women were valued more than men.

A great portion of our history that people routinely forget about is that of the hunting and gathering era. In those cases, women and men both had very important roles to play in survival, and there was not nearly as much sexual division of labor as in later societies. Women were in some cases valued more because they were the bearers of the next generation and thus continued survival of the society, and therefore were considered less expendable than men, whose raw strength was useful in hunting and other dangerous activities.

And nowadays, I would argue the threat to women is not existential, in our developed society. Women undoubtedly have the right to vote and exercise it. They undoubtedly can hold property and have careers. The biggest issue seems to be the gender pay gap, but that’s not really existential. No one’s going to die or get sold into slavery because some movie doesn’t conform to A. Internet Rando’s specific standards of feminism.

LGBT is a different matter, but it’s off-topic to the discussion of Aliya.

[Teneb]

Actually, for the majority of human history, men and women were essentially equal, or even in some cases, women were valued more than men.

A great portion of our history that people routinely forget about is that of the hunting and gathering era. In those cases, women and men both had very important roles to play in survival, and there was not nearly as much sexual division of labor as in later societies. Women were in some cases valued more because they were the bearers of the next generation and thus continued survival of the society, and therefore were considered less expendable than men, whose raw strength was useful in hunting and other dangerous activities.

And nowadays, I would argue the threat to women is not existential, in our developed society. Women undoubtedly have the right to vote and exercise it. They undoubtedly can hold property and have careers. The biggest issue seems to be the gender pay gap, but that’s not really existential. No one’s going to die or get sold into slavery because some movie doesn’t conform to A. Internet Rando’s specific standards of feminism.

LGBT is a different matter, but it’s off-topic to the discussion of Aliya.

I'd argue women do face a somewhat existential threat in the form of getting beaten or killed because they are women[/b] as in the case of domestic violence or in certain areas of the world where women are still property or close to it.

[Yoink]

WTF that was a weird night.
WTF it's four in the afternoon?!

[methylatedspirit]

Does alcohol count as a method of time-compression?

[Reelya]

I'd argue women do face a somewhat existential threat in the form of getting beaten or killed because they are women[/b] as in the case of domestic violence or in certain areas of the world where women are still property or close to it.

the probability of being beaten in a relationship doesn't in fact change very much at all for male, female, gay, straight.

You have to deliberately ignore the fact that all other configurations are equally violent to come to that conclusion.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/In_Brief_Domestic_violence_Not_always_one_sided

When the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time.

Unilateral violence in relationships is overwhelmingly carried out by women, according to this and a large number of other surveys. So the scenario of one side throwing punches and the other party unable or unwilling to defend themselves is about 2/3rds of the time with the woman as the instigator.

EDIT: in conjunction with that, lesbians experience domestic violence at rates at least as higher or even exceeding straight women:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113571/

[wierd]

Is that adjusted for all cultures, or is there a european-origin cultural bias?

It's something I have observed; the old cultural more of "dont hit a woman" results in "I can do [mean spirited, bad thing] and get away with it!" type behaviors, which naturally instigate violence when tolerance levels reach critical, at least in cultures that adhere to such things. 

I am curious if this observation holds in cultures that do not respect such mores.

[bloop_bleep]

I'd argue women do face a somewhat existential threat in the form of getting beaten or killed because they are women as in the case of domestic violence or in certain areas of the world where women are still property or close to it.

This:

the probability of being beaten in a relationship doesn't in fact change very much at all for male, female, gay, straight.

and also notice I mentioned "our developed society" -- that is, the one that produces and consumes such movies as Alita.

[Reelya]

Additionally, the idea that women are property in most traditional societies is also questionable.

They're not "property" in the sense that they're bought and sold. Dowries are money that the family of the girl transfers with the girl when she gets married: it's her share of the family inheritance. It makes little sense to say that "property" owns a share of the family property. What's more true to say is that everyone is subordinate to the family in those traditional extended-family clan-based structures. If a girl leaves the family, she gets the dowry only if she marries into another family, sure. But, men who decide to leave the family don't even get that. they don't get a dowry at all: they'd be expected to earn their own way. There's really no evidence that people in traditional societies love their female children any less than westerners do. It's a bit racist and presumptive, actually.

Women are also incredibly powerful within the structure of those extended families in traditional societies - girls in traditional society are more likely to be terrorized by a domineering family matriarch than her husband who's still living under his mother's household.

The crappy shit in fact happens when you mix modernity with those structures, and things start falling apart.

[Castlecliff]

That women are property shit is centuries old social engineering. The false religions of the world dominate because of that. They killed the old ones and this cyclic nature of things and all things cyclical does what it does.
You're so right. The women are the dominant of the species and key to its survival.
Say packs of men go around spreading seed with no responsibility for it and no concent either. Yes while physically dominant the children would grow up with no equal role models (obviously an extreme ended situation) and that could harm the tribal societies for generations. It only makes sense that they are a pairing and that should be respected and strived for. The man makes the house and the woman makes a home.
Look after your women and they will give it foward tenfold. Hey but I'm just rambling with no skill.
The hurt and fear they try place in our hearts is hard to understand but once you do you can let it go and you can make the world around you, your tribes, your home and all that a great place to live and a better place for the next ones. A powerful totem and stronger hearth to kindle the new gods.

[Yoink]

Feel like I might need to puke but I dunno why. Also my mind is racing. Not sure if it's my hangover still hanging on or if this is what happens when you sleep most of the day and then finally take your meds at 10pm...

[heydude6]

That women are property shit is centuries old social engineering. The false religions of the world dominate because of that. They killed the old ones and this cyclic nature of things and all things cyclical does what it does.
You're so right. The women are the dominant of the species and key to its survival.
Say packs of men go around spreading seed with no responsibility for it and no concent either. Yes while physically dominant the children would grow up with no equal role models (obviously an extreme ended situation) and that could harm the tribal societies for generations. It only makes sense that they are a pairing and that should be respected and strived for. The man makes the house and the woman makes a home.
Look after your women and they will give it foward tenfold. Hey but I'm just rambling with no skill.
The hurt and fear they try place in our hearts is hard to understand but once you do you can let it go and you can make the world around you, your tribes, your home and all that a great place to live and a better place for the next ones. A powerful totem and stronger hearth to kindle the new gods.

Eh, are you okay? You’re kind of rambling at the moment.