[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The point I’m struggling to make is that if blacks can point to a long history of subjugation and enslavement as the root cause of their situation in this country, then why is it ridiculous to say that an almost identical position women have found themselves in is also a result of that same sort of subjugation and prejudice?
[/quote]
The thing is, black communities in other anglo counties do not have anywhere near the myriad of problems blacks in the US do. While no community is perfect, the obvious variable you can isolate with respect to black americans is the formerly long standing practise of legalized slavery and instutitional racism. Combine this with the fact that most black Americans cannot trace their family history past a couple generations and it should be no surprise they face these problems.
In the case of women, there is no single sociological variable you can point to why they’re generally in subservient positions to men in anglo countries. Heck, not just anglo counties but ALL countries really.
So I would say your metaphor is inept because we can plainly see why blacks are disenfranchised, commit higher rates of crime and are in fewer leadership positions etc. Women on the other hand, there is no clear sociological reason, only biological ones.
Patriarchy theory simply does not fit the facts.
[/quote]
There is no clear sociological reason as to why women have been disenfranchised? Are you for real? Do you expect me to take you seriously after a comment like that? EVERY reason women have been disenfranchised is sociological. I’ve already explained how this works and I’ll do so again right now. You haven’t given me one shred of evidence as to why women are “biologically” disenfranchised, only meaningless studies that point out the physical differences between women and men, which says nothing about why women have not, until recently, been found in leadership roles in large numbers. And you’re going to criticize ME for providing meaningless evidence?
You see, when the Industrial Revolution was in its early stages women were the first factory workers, along with children. Men stayed at home to take care of the farm and tend to their property. As agricultural economies were displaced by industrial ones men had to enter factory positions in order to stay solvent since farming wasn’t viable for most anymore.
So a long process started around the end of the 18th century. Women were barred from factory jobs in many cases or were ridiculed and persecuted for trying to work in the same positions that men now sought. There were a multitude of ways men went about disenfranchising women in this manner, including redesigning heavy equipment so that levers were higher off the ground, for instance.
At the same time, the economic boom that accompanied the Industrial Era created a middle class in which it wasn’t necessary for women to work simply to remain solvent. Lower-class women were not immune to the persecution despite NEEDING the extra income, but in many ways middle- and upper-class women who worked were treated worse. As a way of further preventing women from working, the idea of the home as a haven came about. This is where the idea of feminine domesticity came from. Women were viewed, by men, as unfit for labor and were expected to stay at home instead. That is why we now view a lot of housework as feminine. Tending to household chores, cooking, raising children, all that was not viewed as strictly feminine behavior prior to the Industrial Revolution. Before, both men and women participated in those things together much more often.
Many women writers in the 18th and 19th century wrote about this society-imposed subjugation, including Olympe de Gouges’ “Declaration of the Rights of Women”, Mary Shelley, Charlotte Bronte and George Sand.
I could go on and on. What I just described is not theory. It is fact and can be confirmed by even a cursory examination of the historical record. I’ve already recommended two books in this thread for those interested in further reading on the subject.
I have just explained to you how this “disenfranchisement” has occurred through social phenomenon, not biological. I have given you the names of primary sources that have written about this social subjugation. There are numerous historians who have written about the history of this sociological disenfranchisement and I named two specific ones and their books (Changing Lives by Bonnie Smith and City of Dreadful Delight by Judith Walkowitz). What more do you really want from me? It’s like we’re arguing that slavery never happened in the U.S. and asking me to prove it. Fuck, here’s a link to an article about it:
http://www.enotes.com/feminism-criticism/womens-literature-19th-century
I don’t know how biology comes into play. Testosterone is present in men much more than women. Okay. What does that have to do with the fact that women have been kept out of politics and business for a long time and now that they’re gaining more access than ever before they’re getting better and better positions and so forth.
Some women don’t want to do that. So what? Some men don’t aspire to be a leader and so forth. Some men are happy earning whatever allows them to live comfortably. Everyone’s desire for success or leadership or to be at the top of the social pecking order varies from person to person.
There have always been women have aspired to those heights. I just gave you several examples and there are many, many more. But when the expectation is placed on women from birth that they aren’t supposed to be ambitious on their own terms, combined with institutionalized disenfranchisement over the course of generations, women will not be able to or not feel they are supposed to succeed. That is a burden placed on them by society, not biology. And there have always been women who have struggled against that burden.
What some fringe element of the feminist movement thinks is totally immaterial to the discussion. If Jezebel or whomever wants to go around saying that women who are comfortable being a housewife are evil, so what?
