“a majority of Gen Z and millennials think that women’s rights have gone too far.”
If you actually follow the link, that’s not at all what this survey says. Younger voters aren’t turning against women’s rights; they are perceiving that both sexes have rights that must be balanced. From the actual survey: “52 per cent of Gen Z and millennials say society has gone so far in promoting women’s rights that it is discriminating against men”. Characterizing this as a reversal of women’s rights is disingenuous at best, unless one believes that women’s rights are the only rights that matter.
“The contemporary USA, where the recent decline in women’s rights has been most precipitous”
This is absurd. Other than abortion, can someone name me ANY way in which women in America have recently lost any “right” they previously had? And abortion isn’t even a women’s rights issue anymore, since men can get pregnant!
Come to think of it, the largest threat to women’s rights in America today are actually from men who are winning women’s awards by pretending to be women. The White House just bestowed “woman of the year” on a man! Talk about an affront to women’s rights.
Looking at women’s rights in a larger context though: the right to walk down the street without fear, the right to not be abandoned by your husband, the right to a society that allows a middle class standard of living on 1 income, the right to get off the sinking ship first… the last 60 years has been disastrous for women’s rights. In fact, one could reasonably argue that the biggest beneficiaries of the sexual revolution (and associated women’s movements) have been men: men who are now free to view porn 24×7 online; men who expect women to put out on the first date instead of after the ring; men who expect their wives to be breadwinners while they play video games.
Your average single mom struggling to pay the bills after her boyfriend abandoned her with 2 kids might be more than willing to trade places with a 1950’s (or maybe even 1450’s) woman.
Oh dear. You wholly fail to rebut Brian’s cogent and factual argument, on which he is absolutely right – BECAUSE YOU CAN’T.
So like any sophomoric pseudo-leftist ignoramus incapable of independent thought or logical argument, you clutch reflexively for your comfort blanket: ad hominem snark. How pathetic….
The Birkenhead Drill. Ships go down on off South Africa, troops on board and women. Only enough lifeboats for women. Women get off ship, men go into water, either drown or eaten by white sharks. Should men be able to classify themselves as women in order to save their lives? HMS Birkenhead and the Birkenhead Drill – Women and Children First (historic-uk.com)
Oh dear. You wholly fail to rebut Brian’s cogent and factual argument, on which he is absolutely right – BECAUSE YOU CAN’T.
So like any sophomoric pseudo-leftist ignoramus incapable of independent thought or logical argument, you clutch reflexively for your comfort blanket: ad hominem snark. How pathetic….
The Birkenhead Drill. Ships go down on off South Africa, troops on board and women. Only enough lifeboats for women. Women get off ship, men go into water, either drown or eaten by white sharks. Should men be able to classify themselves as women in order to save their lives? HMS Birkenhead and the Birkenhead Drill – Women and Children First (historic-uk.com)
Save yourself the trouble, Brian. You’d be better off buying her a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia instead. What she needs is a “practical explanation” instead. Only the chaps over there can give her that, not you.
Women in the USA have lost the sex based protections in Title IX; the Biden administration has replaced sex with Gender ID in law, which means that males are now more protected than females in American schools, shelters, prisons, and sports.
Losing reproductive freedom has also been devastating for many US women.
The Dems were too busy erasing women from women’s rights to give a damn.
The attack on women’s rights these days is coming from the American Left as much as from the American Right.
Too true Penny Adrian. There are stories coming out of the USA of men entering women’s change rooms, toilets etc and claiming the right to be there because they identify as women. In some cases, if the woman complains she is banned from the facility (especially in YMCA swimming pools etc).
Women in Germany demanded the right to swim topless in public swimming pools. The right was recently granted.
Will men in women’s changing rooms be viewed as quite the same problem in Germany?
I ask this because demands by some feminist seem to be creating a grey area, especially since a certain section of feminism supports trans ideology.
William Shaw, I don’t know any feminists who support gender ideology although I don’t know what is going on in Germany. As for the issue of women’s spaces, it is a matter of safety.
Probably because you are not conversant with all feminists.
A few examples come to mind:
– Amelia Abraham (TED Talk)
– Katrín Jacobsdóttir (Iceland PM)
– Rebecca Solnit (writer)
– Raquel Willis (trans rights activist)
– Sarah Kate Ellis (President GLAAD)
– Gloria Steinem (Journalist)
– European Greens (Political Party)
– Nicola Sturgeon (ex First Minister
– Etc, etc.
Probably because you are not conversant with all feminists.
A few examples come to mind:
– Amelia Abraham (TED Talk)
– Katrín Jacobsdóttir (Iceland PM)
– Rebecca Solnit (writer)
– Raquel Willis (trans rights activist)
– Sarah Kate Ellis (President GLAAD)
– Gloria Steinem (Journalist)
– European Greens (Political Party)
– Nicola Sturgeon (ex First Minister
– Etc, etc.
Oh please. Ideology wins. A woman in my German city was cowed by her colleagues not to report her assault by a new arrival where she was volunteering. Safety is always unimportant to the people going for the glory and status.
Hm. One man online told me that HE would accept 1000 rapes and 300 murders to save a million refugees from “bombs and repression.”
Even this author goes on about women in power. They need to get into representation! And hardly give back to ordinary women. Meanwhile they will take their campaign contributions and create their charities which they will mostly exploit to fund their own families…
Women in charge are not going to make progress for ordinary women.
Did he offer himself up as a sacrifice? Some religions used to conduct human sacrifice. The practice appears to be returning with young girls being the sacrifice.
Did he offer himself up as a sacrifice? Some religions used to conduct human sacrifice. The practice appears to be returning with young girls being the sacrifice.
William Shaw, I don’t know any feminists who support gender ideology although I don’t know what is going on in Germany. As for the issue of women’s spaces, it is a matter of safety.
Oh please. Ideology wins. A woman in my German city was cowed by her colleagues not to report her assault by a new arrival where she was volunteering. Safety is always unimportant to the people going for the glory and status.
Hm. One man online told me that HE would accept 1000 rapes and 300 murders to save a million refugees from “bombs and repression.”
Even this author goes on about women in power. They need to get into representation! And hardly give back to ordinary women. Meanwhile they will take their campaign contributions and create their charities which they will mostly exploit to fund their own families…
Women in charge are not going to make progress for ordinary women.
Women in Germany demanded the right to swim topless in public swimming pools. The right was recently granted.
Will men in women’s changing rooms be viewed as quite the same problem in Germany?
I ask this because demands by some feminist seem to be creating a grey area, especially since a certain section of feminism supports trans ideology.
“lost the sex based protections in Title IX”
No, women are now suffering from the natural consequences of the basic principle behind title 9: that women are to be considered to be biologically exactly the same as men, in fields where the latter are clearly superior or more interested (if it’s the other way, no issues). For example, sports, where male sports was cut down to provide equal quotas for weaker, inferior sportswoman. With the result that you have no ideological defense against trans “women’
And males are even now NOT “more protected” than females in any field of life. Just stop it.
“Losing reproductive freedom has also been devastating”
Again, you have NOT lost reproductive “freedom”, you have lost centrally mandated freedom to abort a baby at any point upto point of delivery.
The US has merely reached the same legal status as Europe – multiple states with differing rules. And most states in Europe don’t allow third trimester abortions. That doesn’t mean women in Europe don’t have “freedom”.
Too true Penny Adrian. There are stories coming out of the USA of men entering women’s change rooms, toilets etc and claiming the right to be there because they identify as women. In some cases, if the woman complains she is banned from the facility (especially in YMCA swimming pools etc).
“lost the sex based protections in Title IX”
No, women are now suffering from the natural consequences of the basic principle behind title 9: that women are to be considered to be biologically exactly the same as men, in fields where the latter are clearly superior or more interested (if it’s the other way, no issues). For example, sports, where male sports was cut down to provide equal quotas for weaker, inferior sportswoman. With the result that you have no ideological defense against trans “women’
And males are even now NOT “more protected” than females in any field of life. Just stop it.
“Losing reproductive freedom has also been devastating”
Again, you have NOT lost reproductive “freedom”, you have lost centrally mandated freedom to abort a baby at any point upto point of delivery.
The US has merely reached the same legal status as Europe – multiple states with differing rules. And most states in Europe don’t allow third trimester abortions. That doesn’t mean women in Europe don’t have “freedom”.
Save yourself the trouble, Brian. You’d be better off buying her a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia instead. What she needs is a “practical explanation” instead. Only the chaps over there can give her that, not you.
Women in the USA have lost the sex based protections in Title IX; the Biden administration has replaced sex with Gender ID in law, which means that males are now more protected than females in American schools, shelters, prisons, and sports.
Losing reproductive freedom has also been devastating for many US women.
The Dems were too busy erasing women from women’s rights to give a damn.
The attack on women’s rights these days is coming from the American Left as much as from the American Right.
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
“a majority of Gen Z and millennials think that women’s rights have gone too far.”
If you actually follow the link, that’s not at all what this survey says. Younger voters aren’t turning against women’s rights; they are perceiving that both sexes have rights that must be balanced. From the actual survey: “52 per cent of Gen Z and millennials say society has gone so far in promoting women’s rights that it is discriminating against men”. Characterizing this as a reversal of women’s rights is disingenuous at best, unless one believes that women’s rights are the only rights that matter.
“The contemporary USA, where the recent decline in women’s rights has been most precipitous”
This is absurd. Other than abortion, can someone name me ANY way in which women in America have recently lost any “right” they previously had? And abortion isn’t even a women’s rights issue anymore, since men can get pregnant!
Come to think of it, the largest threat to women’s rights in America today are actually from men who are winning women’s awards by pretending to be women. The White House just bestowed “woman of the year” on a man! Talk about an affront to women’s rights.
Looking at women’s rights in a larger context though: the right to walk down the street without fear, the right to not be abandoned by your husband, the right to a society that allows a middle class standard of living on 1 income, the right to get off the sinking ship first… the last 60 years has been disastrous for women’s rights. In fact, one could reasonably argue that the biggest beneficiaries of the sexual revolution (and associated women’s movements) have been men: men who are now free to view porn 24×7 online; men who expect women to put out on the first date instead of after the ring; men who expect their wives to be breadwinners while they play video games.
Your average single mom struggling to pay the bills after her boyfriend abandoned her with 2 kids might be more than willing to trade places with a 1950’s (or maybe even 1450’s) woman.
William Shaw
1 year ago
Ivory tower elitist rubbish.
“Of course, any “golden age” claim has to come with a caveat: women did not have the vote”
What a ridiculous statement. Neither did men, until 1918.
In 1918 a coalition government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, enfranchising all men over 21, as well as all women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications. Men were granted the vote in exchange for being called up to fight in the First World War.
Ten years later the remaining women got the vote. In 1928 the Conservative government passed the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 equalizing the franchise to all persons, male and female, over the age of 21.
“the gender pay gap has widened since the Seventies”
More nonsense. There is no gender pay gap. There is an earnings gap that is a result of mothers working fewer hours and part time jobs. I know it must be difficult for an elite academic to understand this but many women actually want to work less and spend time raising their children. It’s an example of the “choice” that feminist claim is their right.
The author also refers to coverture, whereby “a woman’s property became her husband’s after marriage – a wife’s legal identity was “covered” over by her husband.”
What she fails to mention is that if the wife, in the process of running her own business and earning her own money got into debt, coverture resulted in the husband being imprisoned until the debt was paid. The wife was never held legally responsible.
The 1832 Reform Act was only the first step of universal suffrage, and only extended the vote to a small number of men. This increased over time, but even by the time of the Representation of the People Act in 1918, around half of UK men still didn’t have the right to vote. Most of the men killed in WWI died without the right to vote.
Feminists continually perpetuate this myth that only women couldn’t vote prior to 1918, when in reality for the vast majority of British history the vast majority of British men couldn’t vote either.
Janice Fiamengo has written and talked extensively on her blog and YouTube videos titled Fiamengo File (under the channel Studio B) on what she views as the myths of feminism, paying particular attention to documents of the time.
Not wishing to be too pedantic but William Shaw’s original statement was therefore incorrect as it stands.
However another anomaly was that up until 1964 you could be hanged* at 18 but not vote until you were 21.
Incidentally were women subject to National Service 1945-1962?
(*Both sexes.)
Nope: no two wasted years of 0530 reveille for Britain’s young women, of mind-numbing square-bashing, itchy serge battledress, stagging on guard or wandering Salisbury Plain half the night in the rain, being treated like an idiot, shivering in Nissen huts, eating third-rate grub, skiving round air bases armed with a clipboard or being shot or bombed in Palestine/ Korea/ Cyprus/ Malaya/ Kenya/ Aden. And all for about two bob a week. No wonder Britain had a labour shortage in the late forties and fifties (hence Empire Windrush and all the followed).
For some reason la Turner seems unaware of all that.
For the vast majority of history 90% of people have lived in far worse conditions. The conditions you describe would have been endured by many people undertaking unskilled work and living in slums as late as the early 1960s. Was the death rate amongst NS men higher or lower than those working in coal mining or commercial trawling?
There is another view. A NCO who had grown up during the Depression in an industrial area, then seen combat in Commandos/SF where if caught, they would have been executed,may have considered the NS personnel slightly soft.
For the vast majority of history 90% of people have lived in far worse conditions. The conditions you describe would have been endured by many people undertaking unskilled work and living in slums as late as the early 1960s. Was the death rate amongst NS men higher or lower than those working in coal mining or commercial trawling?
There is another view. A NCO who had grown up during the Depression in an industrial area, then seen combat in Commandos/SF where if caught, they would have been executed,may have considered the NS personnel slightly soft.
Nope: no two wasted years of 0530 reveille for Britain’s young women, of mind-numbing square-bashing, itchy serge battledress, stagging on guard or wandering Salisbury Plain half the night in the rain, being treated like an idiot, shivering in Nissen huts, eating third-rate grub, skiving round air bases armed with a clipboard or being shot or bombed in Palestine/ Korea/ Cyprus/ Malaya/ Kenya/ Aden. And all for about two bob a week. No wonder Britain had a labour shortage in the late forties and fifties (hence Empire Windrush and all the followed).
For some reason la Turner seems unaware of all that.
Janice Fiamengo has written and talked extensively on her blog and YouTube videos titled Fiamengo File (under the channel Studio B) on what she views as the myths of feminism, paying particular attention to documents of the time.
Not wishing to be too pedantic but William Shaw’s original statement was therefore incorrect as it stands.
However another anomaly was that up until 1964 you could be hanged* at 18 but not vote until you were 21.
Incidentally were women subject to National Service 1945-1962?
(*Both sexes.)
Apologies, not my intention.
It’s my understanding that the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts enfranchised head of household males however, the property qualifications required by the Acts still meant that a majority of working men could not vote.
The push to enfranchise more men as a result of fighting in the wars of 1793 to 1815. Voting rights has always been based upon whether one pays tax and whether one fights in wars. One had to be worth a certain amount to vote. The exceptions we Yorkshire where far more men had the vote, possibly because in the areas of Danelaw serfdom was far less and Westminster where if one had a front door and a hearth one coul vote.
The Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Germans allowed far more freedom for women than romans and this was mentioned by Tacitus and arab travellers.
Property rights in Europe become important post Charlemagne. Military rule of provinces became hereditary and resulted in the creation of a military aristocracy who held and passed on land to their children. The Norman Conquest introduces feudal rules some 200 years after they developed in Continental Europe. The Common Law is basically the evolution of Anglo Saxon Law with some added Roman /Cannon Law.The Charter of Liberties of 1100 re-introduces Anglo Saxon Law which is further refined by Magna Carta of 1215 AD which leads to the Model Parliament of 1295 AD.Edward The Third said ” That which which affects all must be consulted by all”.The Parliament of 1295 AD is similar to the Anglo Saxon Witan. The reasonability and common sense of Anglo Saxon traditions make the the rigid Normal Feudal Law more flexible, hence practical to create the English Common Law.
I think the Anarchy of 1138 to 1153 where Matilda fought Stephen led to a breakdown of some of the most rigid aspect of Feudal Law. Lady Antonia Fraser has said warfare benefits women as it breaks down rigid barriers – do what works becomes the motto. Men and woman had to work out how to live and work together to survive. If a practice increased survival it was adopted, if it led to death, violence and starvation it was ignored. Jobs have often been based upon physical strength. Cutting down trees with an axe and transporting them requires massive strength, being a carpenter far less.
The 1832 Reform Act was only the first step of universal suffrage, and only extended the vote to a small number of men. This increased over time, but even by the time of the Representation of the People Act in 1918, around half of UK men still didn’t have the right to vote. Most of the men killed in WWI died without the right to vote.
Feminists continually perpetuate this myth that only women couldn’t vote prior to 1918, when in reality for the vast majority of British history the vast majority of British men couldn’t vote either.
Apologies, not my intention.
It’s my understanding that the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts enfranchised head of household males however, the property qualifications required by the Acts still meant that a majority of working men could not vote.
The push to enfranchise more men as a result of fighting in the wars of 1793 to 1815. Voting rights has always been based upon whether one pays tax and whether one fights in wars. One had to be worth a certain amount to vote. The exceptions we Yorkshire where far more men had the vote, possibly because in the areas of Danelaw serfdom was far less and Westminster where if one had a front door and a hearth one coul vote.
The Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Germans allowed far more freedom for women than romans and this was mentioned by Tacitus and arab travellers.
Property rights in Europe become important post Charlemagne. Military rule of provinces became hereditary and resulted in the creation of a military aristocracy who held and passed on land to their children. The Norman Conquest introduces feudal rules some 200 years after they developed in Continental Europe. The Common Law is basically the evolution of Anglo Saxon Law with some added Roman /Cannon Law.The Charter of Liberties of 1100 re-introduces Anglo Saxon Law which is further refined by Magna Carta of 1215 AD which leads to the Model Parliament of 1295 AD.Edward The Third said ” That which which affects all must be consulted by all”.The Parliament of 1295 AD is similar to the Anglo Saxon Witan. The reasonability and common sense of Anglo Saxon traditions make the the rigid Normal Feudal Law more flexible, hence practical to create the English Common Law.
I think the Anarchy of 1138 to 1153 where Matilda fought Stephen led to a breakdown of some of the most rigid aspect of Feudal Law. Lady Antonia Fraser has said warfare benefits women as it breaks down rigid barriers – do what works becomes the motto. Men and woman had to work out how to live and work together to survive. If a practice increased survival it was adopted, if it led to death, violence and starvation it was ignored. Jobs have often been based upon physical strength. Cutting down trees with an axe and transporting them requires massive strength, being a carpenter far less.
‘Of course, any “golden age” claim has to come with a caveat: women did not have the vote, many were abused, exploited, badly paid and they generally died quite young. ‘
Every one of these hazards was also faced by men.
Yet she doesn’t seem to feel that’s relevant.
It would be so refreshing to read a feminist writer with a balanced sense of perspective, but hey, I suppose that’s a contradiction in terms. At least some of the content about medieval women was passably interesting and rationally argued. It’s a shame the second half of her piece didn’t continue along the lines argued so correctly by William Shaw in the comments above. His post would have made a far better conclusion to Turner’s piece than her own predictable and myopic final paragraphs.
Yet she doesn’t seem to feel that’s relevant.
It would be so refreshing to read a feminist writer with a balanced sense of perspective, but hey, I suppose that’s a contradiction in terms. At least some of the content about medieval women was passably interesting and rationally argued. It’s a shame the second half of her piece didn’t continue along the lines argued so correctly by William Shaw in the comments above. His post would have made a far better conclusion to Turner’s piece than her own predictable and myopic final paragraphs.
My 10 year old daughter came back from Girl Guides the other night where they had had a talk about “The Gender Pay Gap”. She asked me why it was fair that men got paid more than women for doing the same job? I said it was because women were very gossipy and liked to take time out during the day to chat with each other whereas men worked hard and got the job done. She seemed to buy it.
Clearly, the 1450s were worse for women than now. Not only did they not have the right to vote in national elections, but they not drive cars. The only flying they could do was on broomsticks, and even that carried a death sentence. There was a version of the European Union called the Holy Roman Empire but even back then, England was not in it. Also, their access to TikTok and other essential social media was very restricted.
Haha! That’s good – and just about the level of historical knowledge and argument one gets from graduate BBC-Guardian-Times-FT ‘left-liberals’ these days.
In fact when Mary Tudor was on the throne she was married to Philip II of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor. We were as good as in the HRE but with certain reserved powers. David Starkey’s youtube talks on this are interesting.
Haha! That’s good – and just about the level of historical knowledge and argument one gets from graduate BBC-Guardian-Times-FT ‘left-liberals’ these days.
In fact when Mary Tudor was on the throne she was married to Philip II of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor. We were as good as in the HRE but with certain reserved powers. David Starkey’s youtube talks on this are interesting.
‘Of course, any “golden age” claim has to come with a caveat: women did not have the vote, many were abused, exploited, badly paid and they generally died quite young. ‘
Every one of these hazards was also faced by men.
My 10 year old daughter came back from Girl Guides the other night where they had had a talk about “The Gender Pay Gap”. She asked me why it was fair that men got paid more than women for doing the same job? I said it was because women were very gossipy and liked to take time out during the day to chat with each other whereas men worked hard and got the job done. She seemed to buy it.
Clearly, the 1450s were worse for women than now. Not only did they not have the right to vote in national elections, but they not drive cars. The only flying they could do was on broomsticks, and even that carried a death sentence. There was a version of the European Union called the Holy Roman Empire but even back then, England was not in it. Also, their access to TikTok and other essential social media was very restricted.
Ah, but the upsides of couverture aren’t part of her grievance narrative….
Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Joy
William Shaw
1 year ago
Ivory tower elitist rubbish.
“Of course, any “golden age” claim has to come with a caveat: women did not have the vote”
What a ridiculous statement. Neither did men, until 1918.
In 1918 a coalition government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, enfranchising all men over 21, as well as all women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications. Men were granted the vote in exchange for being called up to fight in the First World War.
Ten years later the remaining women got the vote. In 1928 the Conservative government passed the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 equalizing the franchise to all persons, male and female, over the age of 21.
“the gender pay gap has widened since the Seventies”
More nonsense. There is no gender pay gap. There is an earnings gap that is a result of mothers working fewer hours and part time jobs. I know it must be difficult for an elite academic to understand this but many women actually want to work less and spend time raising their children. It’s an example of the “choice” that feminist claim is their right.
The author also refers to coverture, whereby “a woman’s property became her husband’s after marriage – a wife’s legal identity was “covered” over by her husband.”
What she fails to mention is that if the wife, in the process of running her own business and earning her own money got into debt, coverture resulted in the husband being imprisoned until the debt was paid. The wife was never held legally responsible.
Last edited 1 year ago by William Shaw
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
I’m an American woman and the only rights I see in decline are those being usurped by men in makeup. Silly article.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
I’m an American woman and the only rights I see in decline are those being usurped by men in makeup. Silly article.
Marco Furlano
1 year ago
“In 1978, higher-educated mothers earned 72% of the wages of equivalent fathers; in 2019, the figure was 69%.”
Where do these figures come from? Average yearly wages? Daily wages? What population? What level of wages?
When women are highly qualified with a university degree, they often earn more than men at the beginning of their career. Once they decide to have a child they often abandon their career, at least temporarily, because they obviously don’t want to abandon their child. And then if they realize how important motherhood is, and have a loving and caring partner who earns enough, they stay at home. Women in lower paid jobs don’t have this freedom.
So why the hell should there be no gap? Do women have to attend a job even if they don’t want? Or shouldn’t society, that’s all of us, protect these women who want to dedicate themselves to the wellbeing of their children, and the future of our society? Beware of the birth gap!
Very good point. Statistics need to be read very carefully. The one you quoted fooled me until you pointed out my block-headed mistake.
Note for my fellow block-heads:
It compares two groups; “educated fathers” and “educated mothers”. It doesn’t differentiate between people who are “in the workforce” and those who aren’t. Since more women (an unstated quantity) stay home to care for young children this statistic is useless to discern who is more valued at work.
Very good point. Statistics need to be read very carefully. The one you quoted fooled me until you pointed out my block-headed mistake.
Note for my fellow block-heads:
It compares two groups; “educated fathers” and “educated mothers”. It doesn’t differentiate between people who are “in the workforce” and those who aren’t. Since more women (an unstated quantity) stay home to care for young children this statistic is useless to discern who is more valued at work.
Marco Furlano
1 year ago
“In 1978, higher-educated mothers earned 72% of the wages of equivalent fathers; in 2019, the figure was 69%.”
Where do these figures come from? Average yearly wages? Daily wages? What population? What level of wages?
When women are highly qualified with a university degree, they often earn more than men at the beginning of their career. Once they decide to have a child they often abandon their career, at least temporarily, because they obviously don’t want to abandon their child. And then if they realize how important motherhood is, and have a loving and caring partner who earns enough, they stay at home. Women in lower paid jobs don’t have this freedom.
So why the hell should there be no gap? Do women have to attend a job even if they don’t want? Or shouldn’t society, that’s all of us, protect these women who want to dedicate themselves to the wellbeing of their children, and the future of our society? Beware of the birth gap!
Wilfred Davis
1 year ago
But the opportunity to earn money means little without the opportunity to represent ourselves, in parliaments and the judiciary, in board rooms and financial institutions.
Please, will the day ever come when a woman can get a place on a board, or we can hope for a female Prime Minister or head of the Supreme Court?
No, it won’t … because all the power is monopolised by those horrid men working as bin-collectors, in the sewers, on building sites, in shipyards, down mines, on trawlers, in trenches laying pipes and cables … and they will never, never ever, loosen their grip on the status and power they hold over women.
Wilfred Davis
1 year ago
But the opportunity to earn money means little without the opportunity to represent ourselves, in parliaments and the judiciary, in board rooms and financial institutions.
Please, will the day ever come when a woman can get a place on a board, or we can hope for a female Prime Minister or head of the Supreme Court?
No, it won’t … because all the power is monopolised by those horrid men working as bin-collectors, in the sewers, on building sites, in shipyards, down mines, on trawlers, in trenches laying pipes and cables … and they will never, never ever, loosen their grip on the status and power they hold over women.
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
You Feminists – you deny biology and would have vegan cats and solitary starlings and then demand everyone say that was normal.
Man and woman. Put children in a room of toys – boys get guns, girls get doll things. Put boys in a room of doll things and the boys use Barbies as gun, and girls in a room of toy weapons, and they will be dressing up pistols as if dolls.
Anyway – in a world of sex denying Lefty-Liberals all which has been achieved is virtually the end of the Family, complete end of extended family, and thus end of Church, Community, Love, and mental health and a sense of well being and purpose.
The boys are out killing them selves with Fentanyl, and the girls are chronically depressed.
Well Done Feminists. You can have sex with anyone at all – but it looks like that is it – just with anyone, but not with a ‘Till Death Do Us Part, Husband’ because you exterminated them.
This goes for a lot of things. You can ‘save the planet’ as long as you put up with the collateral damage. It is too easy to say things without real meaning.
You seem to have entirely failed to understand either what feminism is, or what leads to the views and attitudes of children. To start with the issue of boys choosing guns etc – how old are these children? What messages have they received – from birth – about how they should be, as a boy or as a girl? There’s plenty of research demonstrating that if someone is handed a baby and told it’s a boy, they handle that baby differently, speak to it differently, from how they treat a baby they believe to be a girl. Add in parental role models, attitudes around the family, TV etc etc – and the notion that a boy ‘innately’ prefers guns (heaven help us) is just ridiculous.
The term ‘feminism’ is now applied to a great deal of nonsense that has zilch to do with what feminism began as. But the notion that it’s about having sex with lots of people is absurd (and I don’t quite understand how it’s both that and ‘sex-denying’). Believe it or not, feminism is about enabling women to have control of their own lives, and to have choices about how they lead those lives.
As an aside, the end of the extended family is nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. It’s about an economy that demands mobility for work and punishes those (male or female) not willing to move away from the family, friends and community they’d rather stay with.
He who controls the definition of the words controls the conversation. Your definition of “feminism” is obviously not the same one as Elliott’s. And I have no idea which is correct in today’s world.
You can’t just separate men from women and say,”This is what women want.”
We are a species, arguably like lizards or birds. If the female bird says, “I don’t want to lay eggs, I don’t want to be attractive to male birds, I don’t want any children – I just want to sing all day like him, I will tweet my ideas to the world.”
Then that species will die out. Meanwhile, a more aggressive species will come into the area. The females will want to lay at least six eggs per year because the next generation is the most important thing. Soon, this aggressive species will take over everything and the other birds will have to get permission to fly about every day to look for food. The other species will get so hungry that they will steal food. For that they will have one wing plucked to stop them from flying.
Interesting. But here’s a comforting observation. I’ve dated some radical far-left feminists in my time (it’s like going undercover) and they want to be beautiful and treated as special by guys and given attention just like regular girls do. It’s all an act.
Interesting. But here’s a comforting observation. I’ve dated some radical far-left feminists in my time (it’s like going undercover) and they want to be beautiful and treated as special by guys and given attention just like regular girls do. It’s all an act.
“the notion that a boy ‘innately’ prefers guns (heaven help us) is just ridiculous”
No YOU are a ridiculous fanatic for a barmy gender cult. You clearly haven’t had any children (don’t lie in your response please …). Someone has removed your common sense circuits.
He who controls the definition of the words controls the conversation. Your definition of “feminism” is obviously not the same one as Elliott’s. And I have no idea which is correct in today’s world.
You can’t just separate men from women and say,”This is what women want.”
We are a species, arguably like lizards or birds. If the female bird says, “I don’t want to lay eggs, I don’t want to be attractive to male birds, I don’t want any children – I just want to sing all day like him, I will tweet my ideas to the world.”
Then that species will die out. Meanwhile, a more aggressive species will come into the area. The females will want to lay at least six eggs per year because the next generation is the most important thing. Soon, this aggressive species will take over everything and the other birds will have to get permission to fly about every day to look for food. The other species will get so hungry that they will steal food. For that they will have one wing plucked to stop them from flying.
“the notion that a boy ‘innately’ prefers guns (heaven help us) is just ridiculous”
No YOU are a ridiculous fanatic for a barmy gender cult. You clearly haven’t had any children (don’t lie in your response please …). Someone has removed your common sense circuits.
Elliott, I am a 60+ woman and I can tell you, you are wrong about the toys. I loved playing bang bang you’re dead as a child and I never dressed up anything because dolls bored me. I really loved my chemistry set, my lego, my plastic animals and my racing cars. Many other women can tell you the same story.
Children – and adults – are much more varied, complex and interesting than you give them credit for. Moreover, feminists don’t deny biology. Since our biology is the cause of our oppression it would be ridiculous and self-defeating for us to do so.
Had a husband. Didn’t like marriage; am much happier out of it. Have loved being a mum. And I’m just one person. How many others are out there, happily defying your one-size-fits-all narrative?
That may be true but wasn’t in my case. I loved dolls and all the girly stuff, couldn’t wait to wear makeup. By the sales volumes I suspect retailers would be more inclined to agree; a few anecdotes won’t change reality.
That may be true but wasn’t in my case. I loved dolls and all the girly stuff, couldn’t wait to wear makeup. By the sales volumes I suspect retailers would be more inclined to agree; a few anecdotes won’t change reality.
I can confirm what you said about inherent biological differences, based on what I have seen with my daughter.
But – even though she is extremely girly, she still takes a lot of interest in Legos, maths, computer games, the usual stereotypically bit stuff.
The reason being that her father actively worked on inculcating an interest on these things, bringing stem toys, etc. She still loves and prefers doll stuff though, but at least she has broader horizons.
A big problem with feminism is that it focuses on rights and outcomes. Problem is, you don’t do well in something because you have a right to do it. You do well because you are interested in it. And the typical upper class princess have no interest in guy stuff, either football, Tech, Maths PHDs…. They only know resentment for not being handed those on a platter without any effort or interest.
You beautifully describe how a parent can go with the flow of stereotypical preferences (actually biological drives), while at the same time doing your best to broaden out their range of interests and expand their world. Well done for being a great dad to your daughter. I would guess as a result that your daughter probably has a better understanding of the weirdness of menfolk and is in a better position to form positive mutually beneficial relationships with them.
You beautifully describe how a parent can go with the flow of stereotypical preferences (actually biological drives), while at the same time doing your best to broaden out their range of interests and expand their world. Well done for being a great dad to your daughter. I would guess as a result that your daughter probably has a better understanding of the weirdness of menfolk and is in a better position to form positive mutually beneficial relationships with them.
This goes for a lot of things. You can ‘save the planet’ as long as you put up with the collateral damage. It is too easy to say things without real meaning.
You seem to have entirely failed to understand either what feminism is, or what leads to the views and attitudes of children. To start with the issue of boys choosing guns etc – how old are these children? What messages have they received – from birth – about how they should be, as a boy or as a girl? There’s plenty of research demonstrating that if someone is handed a baby and told it’s a boy, they handle that baby differently, speak to it differently, from how they treat a baby they believe to be a girl. Add in parental role models, attitudes around the family, TV etc etc – and the notion that a boy ‘innately’ prefers guns (heaven help us) is just ridiculous.
The term ‘feminism’ is now applied to a great deal of nonsense that has zilch to do with what feminism began as. But the notion that it’s about having sex with lots of people is absurd (and I don’t quite understand how it’s both that and ‘sex-denying’). Believe it or not, feminism is about enabling women to have control of their own lives, and to have choices about how they lead those lives.
As an aside, the end of the extended family is nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. It’s about an economy that demands mobility for work and punishes those (male or female) not willing to move away from the family, friends and community they’d rather stay with.
Elliott, I am a 60+ woman and I can tell you, you are wrong about the toys. I loved playing bang bang you’re dead as a child and I never dressed up anything because dolls bored me. I really loved my chemistry set, my lego, my plastic animals and my racing cars. Many other women can tell you the same story.
Children – and adults – are much more varied, complex and interesting than you give them credit for. Moreover, feminists don’t deny biology. Since our biology is the cause of our oppression it would be ridiculous and self-defeating for us to do so.
Had a husband. Didn’t like marriage; am much happier out of it. Have loved being a mum. And I’m just one person. How many others are out there, happily defying your one-size-fits-all narrative?
I can confirm what you said about inherent biological differences, based on what I have seen with my daughter.
But – even though she is extremely girly, she still takes a lot of interest in Legos, maths, computer games, the usual stereotypically bit stuff.
The reason being that her father actively worked on inculcating an interest on these things, bringing stem toys, etc. She still loves and prefers doll stuff though, but at least she has broader horizons.
A big problem with feminism is that it focuses on rights and outcomes. Problem is, you don’t do well in something because you have a right to do it. You do well because you are interested in it. And the typical upper class princess have no interest in guy stuff, either football, Tech, Maths PHDs…. They only know resentment for not being handed those on a platter without any effort or interest.
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
You Feminists – you deny biology and would have vegan cats and solitary starlings and then demand everyone say that was normal.
Man and woman. Put children in a room of toys – boys get guns, girls get doll things. Put boys in a room of doll things and the boys use Barbies as gun, and girls in a room of toy weapons, and they will be dressing up pistols as if dolls.
Anyway – in a world of sex denying Lefty-Liberals all which has been achieved is virtually the end of the Family, complete end of extended family, and thus end of Church, Community, Love, and mental health and a sense of well being and purpose.
The boys are out killing them selves with Fentanyl, and the girls are chronically depressed.
Well Done Feminists. You can have sex with anyone at all – but it looks like that is it – just with anyone, but not with a ‘Till Death Do Us Part, Husband’ because you exterminated them.
AC Harper
1 year ago
But the opportunity to earn money means little without the opportunity to represent ourselves, in parliaments and the judiciary, in board rooms and financial institutions.
Assuming that ability is evenly spread over the sexes, what proportion of women want to represent themselves in Parliament or the Judiciary, board rooms and financial institutions? They have dominated in fields like primary education, nursing and publication – so perhaps they could expand into other areas – if they wanted to. We do see individual women doing ‘desirable’ work, so the opportunities exist.
Last edited 1 year ago by AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago
But the opportunity to earn money means little without the opportunity to represent ourselves, in parliaments and the judiciary, in board rooms and financial institutions.
Assuming that ability is evenly spread over the sexes, what proportion of women want to represent themselves in Parliament or the Judiciary, board rooms and financial institutions? They have dominated in fields like primary education, nursing and publication – so perhaps they could expand into other areas – if they wanted to. We do see individual women doing ‘desirable’ work, so the opportunities exist.
Last edited 1 year ago by AC Harper
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago
Thank you for this – just goes to show that the notion of “progress” when applied to history is highly problematical. History is best studied without applying a modern scale at values or preconceived notions – those are blinkers that stop us from seeing the reality of historical phenomena, something that is difficult enough to achieve in the best of circumstances.
Jürg Gassmann
1 year ago
Thank you for this – just goes to show that the notion of “progress” when applied to history is highly problematical. History is best studied without applying a modern scale at values or preconceived notions – those are blinkers that stop us from seeing the reality of historical phenomena, something that is difficult enough to achieve in the best of circumstances.
Matt Sylvestre
1 year ago
How was the question of Women and equality asked of genZ et. all… As much as I resent the Woke ideology of generations younger than my own, I refuse to take the suggestion that they think women’s rights have gone to far on face value without detail or reference…
They are happily shouting down women’s sex based rights to single sex spaces and opportunities in favour of giving males who claim they feel like a woman access to those spaces etc… Hell, they’re trying to redefine what a woman is.
look at the shambolic International woman’s day where trans women were given `woman of the year awards’ for a sign of the times
They are happily shouting down women’s sex based rights to single sex spaces and opportunities in favour of giving males who claim they feel like a woman access to those spaces etc… Hell, they’re trying to redefine what a woman is.
look at the shambolic International woman’s day where trans women were given `woman of the year awards’ for a sign of the times
Matt Sylvestre
1 year ago
How was the question of Women and equality asked of genZ et. all… As much as I resent the Woke ideology of generations younger than my own, I refuse to take the suggestion that they think women’s rights have gone to far on face value without detail or reference…
Steve Murray
1 year ago
On the point raised about women now being “expected to put out on the first date”, is sex regarded by the author as a chore?
Presuming females have availed themselves of the contraceptive pill, and women are regarded as being at least as highly sexed as men, what is the problem here? Again, assuming both partners are willing, isn’t one of the major advances for women the freedom to engage in sexual activity on the same basis as men?
If one or the other wishes to wait until a few dates down the line, all well and good – that might’nt necessarily be the female! But the assumption brought to bear that women are somehow oppressed by this is nonsense.
I’m not quite sure why you regard the contraceptive pill as an automatic solution to such dilemmas. The contraceptive pill is not suitable for a surprising number of women. It is associated with high blood pressure, increased risks of blood clots, strokes, certain kinds of cancers, including liver tumours and breast cancer. These risks increase with age, duration of use, weight, and family medical history. There’s also a wide range of common medications, medical issues and even dietary supplements that can interfere with its function. The vast majority of women do not take it perfectly and consider all of these risks, hence why the advertised effectiveness of around 99% tends to be much higher than the actual effectivess when large numbers of fallible human beings who miss doses, make themselves sick from drinking, and forget to use additional protection when they are on antibiotics (and for seven days after their final dose of such medications) whilst having lots of sex.
In addition, the contraceptive pill offers no protection against STIs, and even when condoms are used, they do not entirely negate the risks of sexually transmitted infections. Some of the above listed issues with effectiveness of use apply to condom use too, so their real world effectiveness tends to be lower than what is advertised based on testing under ideal conditions. Heterosexual women are also more vulnerable when it comes to STIs than heterosexual men overall, the basic mechanics of sex mean that women are more likely to be infected by their male partners than men are to be infected by their female partners, and men are more likely to have symptoms and seek timely treatment for STIs.
Finally, there’s issues such as the increasing number of treatment resistant STIs in circulation to consider. The pill may have been considered a massive step forward in allowing women to have sexual equality when it was first introduced, the reality has been far different, because practical realities of biology and human behaviour ensure that promiscuous sex has unpleasant consequences that human medicine cannot render moot, and many of those consequences still stack disproportionately on heterosexual women.
Except that they do not. They don’t claim 100% effectiveness against transmission of STIs any more than they claim 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy even when used perfectly under ideal conditions.
They claim up to 98% effectiveness at preventing STIs that are transmitted through bodily fluids when used correctly and consistently, but do not offer protection against all STIs. However, as previously stated, correct and consistent usage is the ideal, not the norm, when disorganised, horny and intoxicated human beings are part of the mix, hence the STI epidemic within our society at present.
Except that they do not. They don’t claim 100% effectiveness against transmission of STIs any more than they claim 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy even when used perfectly under ideal conditions.
They claim up to 98% effectiveness at preventing STIs that are transmitted through bodily fluids when used correctly and consistently, but do not offer protection against all STIs. However, as previously stated, correct and consistent usage is the ideal, not the norm, when disorganised, horny and intoxicated human beings are part of the mix, hence the STI epidemic within our society at present.
I need no lessons from anyone on the “mechanics of sex” and the ongoing health implications for women who take the pill, thanks.
Nothing in your post challenges my questioning of why the author indicated that women having sex when they choose to do so – and that might include a first date – was somehow an advantage.
The simple fact is, the pill offers women that choice and it should be welcomed. If they weigh the risks and rewards and decide not to do so – including perhaps for some of the health reasons you’ve put forward – that’s entirely up to them. Others seeking to make that choice for them isn’t helpful.
It’s mainly a response to your questioning how sex can be a chore and your insinuation that the contraceptive pill is somehow an assured method of women having sexual equality with men in terms of deciding to have sex.
Overall, I find much of the article itself to be full of the hyperbole, contradictions and inconsistencies that feminism tends to propagate, but I can’t really see how casual sex can be regarded as not being any kind of chore when the actual precautions for both men and women to minimise the unwelcome consequences of promiscuity are very much one, or that a premise that men and women are somehow sexually equal or equal in sexual desire can be justified given the very different kinds of risks and rewards that each party has to reason through, and differing hormonal cycles of men and women.
I mainly focussed on the issues of sexual promiscuity for women, but there are plenty of different ones that are more applicable for men, most notably, that in many cases, abstinence is the only method by which men can guarantee they aren’t going to be saddled with unwanted fatherhood.
It’s mainly a response to your questioning how sex can be a chore and your insinuation that the contraceptive pill is somehow an assured method of women having sexual equality with men in terms of deciding to have sex.
Overall, I find much of the article itself to be full of the hyperbole, contradictions and inconsistencies that feminism tends to propagate, but I can’t really see how casual sex can be regarded as not being any kind of chore when the actual precautions for both men and women to minimise the unwelcome consequences of promiscuity are very much one, or that a premise that men and women are somehow sexually equal or equal in sexual desire can be justified given the very different kinds of risks and rewards that each party has to reason through, and differing hormonal cycles of men and women.
I mainly focussed on the issues of sexual promiscuity for women, but there are plenty of different ones that are more applicable for men, most notably, that in many cases, abstinence is the only method by which men can guarantee they aren’t going to be saddled with unwanted fatherhood.
I need no lessons from anyone on the “mechanics of sex” and the ongoing health implications for women who take the pill, thanks.
Nothing in your post challenges my questioning of why the author indicated that women having sex when they choose to do so – and that might include a first date – was somehow an advantage.
The simple fact is, the pill offers women that choice and it should be welcomed. If they weigh the risks and rewards and decide not to do so – including perhaps for some of the health reasons you’ve put forward – that’s entirely up to them. Others seeking to make that choice for them isn’t helpful.
“isn’t one of the major advances for women the freedom to engage in sexual activity on the same basis as men?”
You make the common mistake of:
1.assuming that just because people might want something and be able to have it that it is a good thing/advance. It might be good in the freedom sense but bad in every other eg our freedom from being forced to be physically active.
2 that something that is good for the average man must be good for the average woman. Or vice versa. Men and women are diffferent and so often benefit from different things.
I’d argue that as wonderful as the pill is, it is a double edge sword. Before contraception pills were available, a woman could say no and cite fear of pregnancy. Now women are coerced and told they are frigid if don’t put out. Incels aren’t the only men who believe women owe them sex. Add to that the unrealistic expectations created by the 24hr availability of porn and things get messy.
Why is it a wonderful freedom to w***e yourself about. I’ve never understood that. And I was a young adult in the 1970s. And reality taught me a hard lesson about how most of the ideas we are taught re politics,ethics,equality etc are huge big fat lies and most ordinary,normal people live by much older, traditional values,they just keep quiet about it. That glamorous female entertainer at whom you laugh your socks at on tv (and she might even be a he) you’d protest to the local council of she moved in next door. Just saying ,life as we see it in the media and life as we live it everyday is two different things.
Not really – women get far more emotionally invested in sex than men do. They enjoy it as much as guys, but they attach a lot of emotional meaning to it.
Guys are easily led into sex but are often planning an exit as soon as the act is done. They can chalk it up to lust and bad judgement and “on to the next one”.
I’m not quite sure why you regard the contraceptive pill as an automatic solution to such dilemmas. The contraceptive pill is not suitable for a surprising number of women. It is associated with high blood pressure, increased risks of blood clots, strokes, certain kinds of cancers, including liver tumours and breast cancer. These risks increase with age, duration of use, weight, and family medical history. There’s also a wide range of common medications, medical issues and even dietary supplements that can interfere with its function. The vast majority of women do not take it perfectly and consider all of these risks, hence why the advertised effectiveness of around 99% tends to be much higher than the actual effectivess when large numbers of fallible human beings who miss doses, make themselves sick from drinking, and forget to use additional protection when they are on antibiotics (and for seven days after their final dose of such medications) whilst having lots of sex.
In addition, the contraceptive pill offers no protection against STIs, and even when condoms are used, they do not entirely negate the risks of sexually transmitted infections. Some of the above listed issues with effectiveness of use apply to condom use too, so their real world effectiveness tends to be lower than what is advertised based on testing under ideal conditions. Heterosexual women are also more vulnerable when it comes to STIs than heterosexual men overall, the basic mechanics of sex mean that women are more likely to be infected by their male partners than men are to be infected by their female partners, and men are more likely to have symptoms and seek timely treatment for STIs.
Finally, there’s issues such as the increasing number of treatment resistant STIs in circulation to consider. The pill may have been considered a massive step forward in allowing women to have sexual equality when it was first introduced, the reality has been far different, because practical realities of biology and human behaviour ensure that promiscuous sex has unpleasant consequences that human medicine cannot render moot, and many of those consequences still stack disproportionately on heterosexual women.
“isn’t one of the major advances for women the freedom to engage in sexual activity on the same basis as men?”
You make the common mistake of:
1.assuming that just because people might want something and be able to have it that it is a good thing/advance. It might be good in the freedom sense but bad in every other eg our freedom from being forced to be physically active.
2 that something that is good for the average man must be good for the average woman. Or vice versa. Men and women are diffferent and so often benefit from different things.
I’d argue that as wonderful as the pill is, it is a double edge sword. Before contraception pills were available, a woman could say no and cite fear of pregnancy. Now women are coerced and told they are frigid if don’t put out. Incels aren’t the only men who believe women owe them sex. Add to that the unrealistic expectations created by the 24hr availability of porn and things get messy.
Why is it a wonderful freedom to w***e yourself about. I’ve never understood that. And I was a young adult in the 1970s. And reality taught me a hard lesson about how most of the ideas we are taught re politics,ethics,equality etc are huge big fat lies and most ordinary,normal people live by much older, traditional values,they just keep quiet about it. That glamorous female entertainer at whom you laugh your socks at on tv (and she might even be a he) you’d protest to the local council of she moved in next door. Just saying ,life as we see it in the media and life as we live it everyday is two different things.
Not really – women get far more emotionally invested in sex than men do. They enjoy it as much as guys, but they attach a lot of emotional meaning to it.
Guys are easily led into sex but are often planning an exit as soon as the act is done. They can chalk it up to lust and bad judgement and “on to the next one”.
Truth.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
On the point raised about women now being “expected to put out on the first date”, is sex regarded by the author as a chore?
Presuming females have availed themselves of the contraceptive pill, and women are regarded as being at least as highly sexed as men, what is the problem here? Again, assuming both partners are willing, isn’t one of the major advances for women the freedom to engage in sexual activity on the same basis as men?
If one or the other wishes to wait until a few dates down the line, all well and good – that might’nt necessarily be the female! But the assumption brought to bear that women are somehow oppressed by this is nonsense.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Pre-Christian Roman women, such as Eumachia, Julia Domna and Hypatia to name but a few, had unimaginable freedom compared to Medieval or even early modern women.
This was not to be rectified until the late nineteenth century in the UK.
You can’t use a few famous women to justify this point. The roman legal system was almost parodically patriarchal. Gibbons chapters on the roman legal system are some of his best work. In fact he posits the position of women in the roman family to be the reason for so many women adopting christianity early on before it was institutionalised and he didn’t say this as a fan of the early christians, quite the opposite.
Much as I love Gibbon, scholarship on this subject has moved on in the last two hundred and fifty years.
By the late Republic- Early Empire woman had gained unprecedented legal and property rights. As a direct result of the concept of ‘sui iuris’ they had full agnatic control of property etc.
Thanks to Augustus’s ‘Ius Liberorum’ they gained further privileges, and so it continued until the advent of the necro-cult, otherwise known as Christianity.
You castigate me for “using the names of few famous women “. I did so for the sake of brevity and could have used many more. However let me add just one, Maesia Sentinas, you may find her interesting.
Presumably you are no descendant of Edward Gibbon?
I don’t think it has significantly – in fact some of his claims undersold the extent to which the male head of house had authority over all those underneath him. You say unprecendented – are you suggesting that things got worse after the early caesars?
“In the first ages, the father of a family might sell his children, and his wife was reckoned in the number of his children: the domestic judge might pronounce the death of the offender, or his mercy might expel her from his bed and house; but the slavery of the wretched female was hopeless and perpetual, unless he asserted for his own convenience the manly prerogative of divorce.” Gibbon. Fantastic stuff. He says things got better after the Punic wars however.
No, I’m saying things got progressively better from say the late Republic until the advent of Theodosius at the end of the fourth century. Do you seriously deny this?
No, I never did. I am just probing your claim of scholarship having “moved on” which to me implies there has been some serious debunking of Gibbon’s theories in this area (still unelucidated). The examples of the pre-roman rule of queens such as Cleopatra and the rise of Zenobia beyond roman authority being cases in point against roman egalitarianism. Is an eccentric curiosity as a female philosopher (Hypatia) a better example than Eleanor of Aquitaine or any other medieval queen who enjoyed the freedom of real authority? Or Joan of Arc (a peasant) holding the fate nations when Eumachia was just a rich man’s daughter in a provincial town whowe probably would never have heard of had Vesuvius not preserved her memory?
By your own admission Gibbon stated “that things got better after the Punic Wars” but then off course fails to mention the details that I have mentioned above. Why? perhaps because it would invalidate his later assertion that women flocked to Christianity because of their ‘servile’ position perhaps?
“The examples of the pre-roman rule of queens such as Cleopatra and the rise of Zenobia beyond roman authority being cases in point against roman egalitarianism.”
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Nether Cleopatra or Zenobia are relevant here.
OR this: “ Joan of Arc (a peasant) holding the fate nations when Eumachia was just a rich man’s daughter in a provincial town whowe* we probably would never have heard of had Vesuvius not preserved her memory?”
The whole point is that ,Eumachia, who you would call a ‘Commoner’ had complete financial and legal freedom in a Roman world, obsessed by legality, and a very far cry and fourteen hundred years before the medieval barbarianism of ‘unwashed’** fifteenth century France.
As for comparing Hypatia “an eccentric curiosity” in your words, to the unstable Eleanor of Aquitaine is truly banal.
My initial contention was that: “Pre-Christian Roman women had unimaginable freedom compared to Medieval or even early modern women”. Nothing you have said refuted this, even when you invoked the splendid Edward Gibbon.
Freedom varies over the ages. Generally speaking women have more freedom in Sparta than Athens, the Germanic and Scandinavian countries; where husbands are seafarers, live in the countryside as opposed to towns; there are no inherited aristocratic titles with power and/or land, nomadic. If a woman is free to walk and work such as a shepherdess, she will have more freedom than a women living in a town and the wool she sells will give her an income.
It is possible that the barbarians introduced a from of VD at the Fall of Rome and as did sailors returning from America with Columbus which made sex far more risky, especially for women. Also attitude to bastardy. William the b*****d was a son of a tanners daughter but was accepted by the aristocracy because his father Duke of Normandy acknowledged paternity. I would suggest that acceptance of bastards into the ruling class gives women far more freedom.Compare the freedom of Nell Gwynne in the 1660s with her son being made Duke of St Albans with most middle class women of the 1860s.
I don’t disagree with what you say but was trying to state the strictly legal position in Roman Law.
Incidentally there was little need of illegitimacy as ‘legal adoption’ was very widespread.
Was that statement about “sailors returning from America”, an oblique reference to syphilis ? I only ask because the latest research now indicates that ‘it’ was in Europe well before 1492.
I don’t disagree with what you say but was trying to state the strictly legal position in Roman Law.
Incidentally there was little need of illegitimacy as ‘legal adoption’ was very widespread.
Was that statement about “sailors returning from America”, an oblique reference to syphilis ? I only ask because the latest research now indicates that ‘it’ was in Europe well before 1492.
In your first paragraph I assume you mean “that” instead of “then”. I don’t believe you have actually challenged any of the assertions I have quoted with scholarship – as opposed to your opinion. I would be genuinely interested to hear some but it doesn’t seem likely I will get any.
My point with quoting the queens is that the legal status of women outside the empire could rise higher than that in it – which Tacitus notes in his Germania. That barbarian women were free was seen as a negative by roman society which it is documented as the view of the romans themselves.
Describing something as banal doesn’t make it untrue – in fact quite the opposite. It is a shame that you have to stoop to insult when someone has an educated difference of opinion. My wider point was that in any era you can pick out individuals who are not representative of the whole. not that any of the examples I gave are accurate representations of the status of women in those societies. In the same way Eleanor or Zenobia are not relevant, neither is any number of individually fascinating roman women.
To say that Eumachia had “complete financial and legal freedom” with no evidence does your argument no credit.
Freedom varies over the ages. Generally speaking women have more freedom in Sparta than Athens, the Germanic and Scandinavian countries; where husbands are seafarers, live in the countryside as opposed to towns; there are no inherited aristocratic titles with power and/or land, nomadic. If a woman is free to walk and work such as a shepherdess, she will have more freedom than a women living in a town and the wool she sells will give her an income.
It is possible that the barbarians introduced a from of VD at the Fall of Rome and as did sailors returning from America with Columbus which made sex far more risky, especially for women. Also attitude to bastardy. William the b*****d was a son of a tanners daughter but was accepted by the aristocracy because his father Duke of Normandy acknowledged paternity. I would suggest that acceptance of bastards into the ruling class gives women far more freedom.Compare the freedom of Nell Gwynne in the 1660s with her son being made Duke of St Albans with most middle class women of the 1860s.
In your first paragraph I assume you mean “that” instead of “then”. I don’t believe you have actually challenged any of the assertions I have quoted with scholarship – as opposed to your opinion. I would be genuinely interested to hear some but it doesn’t seem likely I will get any.
My point with quoting the queens is that the legal status of women outside the empire could rise higher than that in it – which Tacitus notes in his Germania. That barbarian women were free was seen as a negative by roman society which it is documented as the view of the romans themselves.
Describing something as banal doesn’t make it untrue – in fact quite the opposite. It is a shame that you have to stoop to insult when someone has an educated difference of opinion. My wider point was that in any era you can pick out individuals who are not representative of the whole. not that any of the examples I gave are accurate representations of the status of women in those societies. In the same way Eleanor or Zenobia are not relevant, neither is any number of individually fascinating roman women.
To say that Eumachia had “complete financial and legal freedom” with no evidence does your argument no credit.
By your own admission Gibbon stated “that things got better after the Punic Wars” but then off course fails to mention the details that I have mentioned above. Why? perhaps because it would invalidate his later assertion that women flocked to Christianity because of their ‘servile’ position perhaps?
“The examples of the pre-roman rule of queens such as Cleopatra and the rise of Zenobia beyond roman authority being cases in point against roman egalitarianism.”
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Nether Cleopatra or Zenobia are relevant here.
OR this: “ Joan of Arc (a peasant) holding the fate nations when Eumachia was just a rich man’s daughter in a provincial town whowe* we probably would never have heard of had Vesuvius not preserved her memory?”
The whole point is that ,Eumachia, who you would call a ‘Commoner’ had complete financial and legal freedom in a Roman world, obsessed by legality, and a very far cry and fourteen hundred years before the medieval barbarianism of ‘unwashed’** fifteenth century France.
As for comparing Hypatia “an eccentric curiosity” in your words, to the unstable Eleanor of Aquitaine is truly banal.
My initial contention was that: “Pre-Christian Roman women had unimaginable freedom compared to Medieval or even early modern women”. Nothing you have said refuted this, even when you invoked the splendid Edward Gibbon.
No, I never did. I am just probing your claim of scholarship having “moved on” which to me implies there has been some serious debunking of Gibbon’s theories in this area (still unelucidated). The examples of the pre-roman rule of queens such as Cleopatra and the rise of Zenobia beyond roman authority being cases in point against roman egalitarianism. Is an eccentric curiosity as a female philosopher (Hypatia) a better example than Eleanor of Aquitaine or any other medieval queen who enjoyed the freedom of real authority? Or Joan of Arc (a peasant) holding the fate nations when Eumachia was just a rich man’s daughter in a provincial town whowe probably would never have heard of had Vesuvius not preserved her memory?
No, I’m saying things got progressively better from say the late Republic until the advent of Theodosius at the end of the fourth century. Do you seriously deny this?
I don’t think it has significantly – in fact some of his claims undersold the extent to which the male head of house had authority over all those underneath him. You say unprecendented – are you suggesting that things got worse after the early caesars?
“In the first ages, the father of a family might sell his children, and his wife was reckoned in the number of his children: the domestic judge might pronounce the death of the offender, or his mercy might expel her from his bed and house; but the slavery of the wretched female was hopeless and perpetual, unless he asserted for his own convenience the manly prerogative of divorce.” Gibbon. Fantastic stuff. He says things got better after the Punic wars however.
Much as I love Gibbon, scholarship on this subject has moved on in the last two hundred and fifty years.
By the late Republic- Early Empire woman had gained unprecedented legal and property rights. As a direct result of the concept of ‘sui iuris’ they had full agnatic control of property etc.
Thanks to Augustus’s ‘Ius Liberorum’ they gained further privileges, and so it continued until the advent of the necro-cult, otherwise known as Christianity.
You castigate me for “using the names of few famous women “. I did so for the sake of brevity and could have used many more. However let me add just one, Maesia Sentinas, you may find her interesting.
Presumably you are no descendant of Edward Gibbon?
You can’t use a few famous women to justify this point. The roman legal system was almost parodically patriarchal. Gibbons chapters on the roman legal system are some of his best work. In fact he posits the position of women in the roman family to be the reason for so many women adopting christianity early on before it was institutionalised and he didn’t say this as a fan of the early christians, quite the opposite.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Pre-Christian Roman women, such as Eumachia, Julia Domna and Hypatia to name but a few, had unimaginable freedom compared to Medieval or even early modern women.
This was not to be rectified until the late nineteenth century in the UK.
Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Adam K
1 year ago
Interesting stuff here but the defence of abortion was awful. How can it be a “right” to murder an unborn.
We’ll said (she doesn’t quite go into that but assumes it’s a universal “right” that only men deny and that all women agree should be a God given right).
Also, Roe v. Wade was one of the two or three most poorly argued and written opinions of the modern age (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as much). What is a crime (including whether abortion was “legal”) had always been left to the Several States until that ridiculous opinion, and after Dobbs, it’s now (drum roll) left to the Several States.
For those of you who weren’t around then, women could get an abortion in NEW York before Roe, and can still get an abortion after Dobbs. Mississippi is different, but not only men voted on it in the legislature (and voted for the legislators).
We’ll said (she doesn’t quite go into that but assumes it’s a universal “right” that only men deny and that all women agree should be a God given right).
Also, Roe v. Wade was one of the two or three most poorly argued and written opinions of the modern age (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as much). What is a crime (including whether abortion was “legal”) had always been left to the Several States until that ridiculous opinion, and after Dobbs, it’s now (drum roll) left to the Several States.
For those of you who weren’t around then, women could get an abortion in NEW York before Roe, and can still get an abortion after Dobbs. Mississippi is different, but not only men voted on it in the legislature (and voted for the legislators).
Generally, and historically, men had a greater interest in abortion than women. Can’t think why.
Adam K
1 year ago
Interesting stuff here but the defence of abortion was awful. How can it be a “right” to murder an unborn.
Melissa Martin
1 year ago
I’ll say. Scottish Boards comprising 5O% males who say they are male and 50% males who say they are female legally equally represent the sexes.
Melissa Martin
1 year ago
I’ll say. Scottish Boards comprising 5O% males who say they are male and 50% males who say they are female legally equally represent the sexes.
Erin Harkiewicz
1 year ago
Anyone who cites the nonexistent “gender wage gap” as evidence of anything cannot be taken seriously on any subject.
Although as a medievalist, I do appreciate acknowledgment that medieval Europe was not a hellhole of patriarchial sexism in every day life.
Erin Harkiewicz
1 year ago
Anyone who cites the nonexistent “gender wage gap” as evidence of anything cannot be taken seriously on any subject.
Although as a medievalist, I do appreciate acknowledgment that medieval Europe was not a hellhole of patriarchial sexism in every day life.
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
If the coverture laws came with the Norman invasion and Chaucer’s women with their increased freedom came long after that, how is that regression?
She did note that the plague(s) came along reducing populations. The smaller workforce of men available gave rise to women entering the `professions’
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
If the coverture laws came with the Norman invasion and Chaucer’s women with their increased freedom came long after that, how is that regression?
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
The author asks,”Why is social change so easily reversed?” Answer: because social change has become a fashion. It is all about how to be different, how to stand out from the crowd. Women wore mini-skirts to stand out. Then they covered up their legs to join the feminist fashion. I imagine that mini-skirts will be here soon.
It’s true, Chris, that social change has become a kind of fashion. By that, I mean, an end in itself and thus no different from the commercial slogan: “new, improved.” But I think that social change is ultimately more deeply rooted than any fashion, whether sartorial, commercial or ideological.
Social change occurs because change itself is a defining feature existence (for both living and non-living things) in the flux of this material world. This is why many religious traditions identify stasis (in the context of immortality, eternity, paradise lost, paradise regained and so on) as a defining feature of existence in some immaterial world–except for Buddhism, which sees existence itself (samsara: the cycles of birth, death and rebirth) as a painful illusion to be escaped by attaining enlightenment (nirvana) and finally “blowing out the flame” of existence.
That’s a long way of saying that every society is always an experiment. This is the context in which we must continually make choices, preferably with wisdom gained from the study of history and therefore of human nature, accepting the fact that some of these choices will eventually turn out to be mistakes. That leaves us with two questions: (a) whether this or that change is either beneficial or destructive and therefore (b) whether we should either foster or mitigate it.
In my opinion, a long series of ideological fashions (from rationalism to romanticism, from Marxism to postmodernism, from transgenderism to transhumanism, most recently from feminism to wokism,) has led us to some very useful insights but also to some profoundly destructive moral panics. And these might well lead, quickly, to the ultimate folly: collective suicide. The danger signs are all there for anyone to see: the open rejection of both reason and nature, the common denunciation of both common sense and common decency, all in the name of utopian fantasies.
It’s true, Chris, that social change has become a kind of fashion. By that, I mean, an end in itself and thus no different from the commercial slogan: “new, improved.” But I think that social change is ultimately more deeply rooted than any fashion, whether sartorial, commercial or ideological.
Social change occurs because change itself is a defining feature existence (for both living and non-living things) in the flux of this material world. This is why many religious traditions identify stasis (in the context of immortality, eternity, paradise lost, paradise regained and so on) as a defining feature of existence in some immaterial world–except for Buddhism, which sees existence itself (samsara: the cycles of birth, death and rebirth) as a painful illusion to be escaped by attaining enlightenment (nirvana) and finally “blowing out the flame” of existence.
That’s a long way of saying that every society is always an experiment. This is the context in which we must continually make choices, preferably with wisdom gained from the study of history and therefore of human nature, accepting the fact that some of these choices will eventually turn out to be mistakes. That leaves us with two questions: (a) whether this or that change is either beneficial or destructive and therefore (b) whether we should either foster or mitigate it.
In my opinion, a long series of ideological fashions (from rationalism to romanticism, from Marxism to postmodernism, from transgenderism to transhumanism, most recently from feminism to wokism,) has led us to some very useful insights but also to some profoundly destructive moral panics. And these might well lead, quickly, to the ultimate folly: collective suicide. The danger signs are all there for anyone to see: the open rejection of both reason and nature, the common denunciation of both common sense and common decency, all in the name of utopian fantasies.
Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Nathanson
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
The author asks,”Why is social change so easily reversed?” Answer: because social change has become a fashion. It is all about how to be different, how to stand out from the crowd. Women wore mini-skirts to stand out. Then they covered up their legs to join the feminist fashion. I imagine that mini-skirts will be here soon.
Kerie Receveur
1 year ago
Nichola de la Haye is a fine example of a splendid mediaeval woman.
Buried in a very fine church with an impressive tomb complete with her dog.
Not far away you also have the redoubtable Katherine Swynford and her notable tomb.
Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Kerie Receveur
1 year ago
Nichola de la Haye is a fine example of a splendid mediaeval woman.
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
“A recent survey demonstrated, astonishingly, that a majority of Gen Z and millennials think that women’s rights have gone too far.”
Common sense yet lives! Indeed they have gone too far. Females are now the favored, pampered, entitled and privileged sex and the average woman leads a far more protected life than the average man. One can cherry-pick statistics that show female disadvantage, but one can also point to statistics proving the opposite.
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
“A recent survey demonstrated, astonishingly, that a majority of Gen Z and millennials think that women’s rights have gone too far.”
Common sense yet lives! Indeed they have gone too far. Females are now the favored, pampered, entitled and privileged sex and the average woman leads a far more protected life than the average man. One can cherry-pick statistics that show female disadvantage, but one can also point to statistics proving the opposite.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
No, they did not. Egad.
Cynthia W.
1 year ago
No, they did not. Egad.
jane baker
1 year ago
As for the last point about political representation. Women don’t hang about in the bars,clubs and restaurants making informal contacts and alliances with other barflys in a nebulous contacts network. And it seems to me that women ie female persons with the correct biological parts are redefining themselves as the weaker sex by citing everything from the onset of menstruation,to menopause,to child beating to fear of sexual attacks in public areas,how can you be “vulnerable ‘ in so many ways and need extra care and support yet still be fearless,strong and equal. No wonder trans ones have grabbed the old identity,it was fake in the first place.
Janet G
1 year ago
If you want proof that a lot of men hate women, read the comments below an Unherd article on women.
If you want proof that some women don’t even listen to men, read the comments that challenge this or that aspect of feminist ideology–which is definitely not the same as hating women (that is, wanting to harm women). Feminist ideology is an ideology like any other, not divine revelation.
If you want proof that some women don’t even listen to men, read the comments that challenge this or that aspect of feminist ideology–which is definitely not the same as hating women (that is, wanting to harm women). Feminist ideology is an ideology like any other, not divine revelation.
Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Nathanson
Janet G
1 year ago
If you want proof that a lot of men hate women, read the comments below an Unherd article on women.
“a majority of Gen Z and millennials think that women’s rights have gone too far.”
If you actually follow the link, that’s not at all what this survey says. Younger voters aren’t turning against women’s rights; they are perceiving that both sexes have rights that must be balanced. From the actual survey: “52 per cent of Gen Z and millennials say society has gone so far in promoting women’s rights that it is discriminating against men”. Characterizing this as a reversal of women’s rights is disingenuous at best, unless one believes that women’s rights are the only rights that matter.
“The contemporary USA, where the recent decline in women’s rights has been most precipitous”
This is absurd. Other than abortion, can someone name me ANY way in which women in America have recently lost any “right” they previously had? And abortion isn’t even a women’s rights issue anymore, since men can get pregnant!
Come to think of it, the largest threat to women’s rights in America today are actually from men who are winning women’s awards by pretending to be women. The White House just bestowed “woman of the year” on a man! Talk about an affront to women’s rights.
Looking at women’s rights in a larger context though: the right to walk down the street without fear, the right to not be abandoned by your husband, the right to a society that allows a middle class standard of living on 1 income, the right to get off the sinking ship first… the last 60 years has been disastrous for women’s rights. In fact, one could reasonably argue that the biggest beneficiaries of the sexual revolution (and associated women’s movements) have been men: men who are now free to view porn 24×7 online; men who expect women to put out on the first date instead of after the ring; men who expect their wives to be breadwinners while they play video games.
Your average single mom struggling to pay the bills after her boyfriend abandoned her with 2 kids might be more than willing to trade places with a 1950’s (or maybe even 1450’s) woman.
Save yourself the trouble, Brian. You’d be better off if you bought her a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia instead.
Oh dear. You wholly fail to rebut Brian’s cogent and factual argument, on which he is absolutely right – BECAUSE YOU CAN’T.
So like any sophomoric pseudo-leftist ignoramus incapable of independent thought or logical argument, you clutch reflexively for your comfort blanket: ad hominem snark. How pathetic….
The Birkenhead Drill. Ships go down on off South Africa, troops on board and women. Only enough lifeboats for women. Women get off ship, men go into water, either drown or eaten by white sharks. Should men be able to classify themselves as women in order to save their lives?
HMS Birkenhead and the Birkenhead Drill – Women and Children First (historic-uk.com)
or should there be sufficient lifeboats for everybody on the ship?
or should there be sufficient lifeboats for everybody on the ship?
Oh dear. You wholly fail to rebut Brian’s cogent and factual argument, on which he is absolutely right – BECAUSE YOU CAN’T.
So like any sophomoric pseudo-leftist ignoramus incapable of independent thought or logical argument, you clutch reflexively for your comfort blanket: ad hominem snark. How pathetic….
The Birkenhead Drill. Ships go down on off South Africa, troops on board and women. Only enough lifeboats for women. Women get off ship, men go into water, either drown or eaten by white sharks. Should men be able to classify themselves as women in order to save their lives?
HMS Birkenhead and the Birkenhead Drill – Women and Children First (historic-uk.com)
1
Save yourself the trouble, Brian. You’d be better off buying her a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia instead. What she needs is a “practical explanation” instead. Only the chaps over there can give her that, not you.
Women in the USA have lost the sex based protections in Title IX; the Biden administration has replaced sex with Gender ID in law, which means that males are now more protected than females in American schools, shelters, prisons, and sports.
Losing reproductive freedom has also been devastating for many US women.
The Dems were too busy erasing women from women’s rights to give a damn.
The attack on women’s rights these days is coming from the American Left as much as from the American Right.
Too true Penny Adrian. There are stories coming out of the USA of men entering women’s change rooms, toilets etc and claiming the right to be there because they identify as women. In some cases, if the woman complains she is banned from the facility (especially in YMCA swimming pools etc).
Women in Germany demanded the right to swim topless in public swimming pools. The right was recently granted.
Will men in women’s changing rooms be viewed as quite the same problem in Germany?
I ask this because demands by some feminist seem to be creating a grey area, especially since a certain section of feminism supports trans ideology.
William Shaw, I don’t know any feminists who support gender ideology although I don’t know what is going on in Germany. As for the issue of women’s spaces, it is a matter of safety.
Probably because you are not conversant with all feminists.
A few examples come to mind:
– Amelia Abraham (TED Talk)
– Katrín Jacobsdóttir (Iceland PM)
– Rebecca Solnit (writer)
– Raquel Willis (trans rights activist)
– Sarah Kate Ellis (President GLAAD)
– Gloria Steinem (Journalist)
– European Greens (Political Party)
– Nicola Sturgeon (ex First Minister
– Etc, etc.
Probably because you are not conversant with all feminists.
A few examples come to mind:
– Amelia Abraham (TED Talk)
– Katrín Jacobsdóttir (Iceland PM)
– Rebecca Solnit (writer)
– Raquel Willis (trans rights activist)
– Sarah Kate Ellis (President GLAAD)
– Gloria Steinem (Journalist)
– European Greens (Political Party)
– Nicola Sturgeon (ex First Minister
– Etc, etc.
Oh please. Ideology wins. A woman in my German city was cowed by her colleagues not to report her assault by a new arrival where she was volunteering. Safety is always unimportant to the people going for the glory and status.
Hm. One man online told me that HE would accept 1000 rapes and 300 murders to save a million refugees from “bombs and repression.”
Even this author goes on about women in power. They need to get into representation! And hardly give back to ordinary women. Meanwhile they will take their campaign contributions and create their charities which they will mostly exploit to fund their own families…
Women in charge are not going to make progress for ordinary women.
Did he offer himself up as a sacrifice? Some religions used to conduct human sacrifice. The practice appears to be returning with young girls being the sacrifice.
Did he offer himself up as a sacrifice? Some religions used to conduct human sacrifice. The practice appears to be returning with young girls being the sacrifice.
William Shaw, I don’t know any feminists who support gender ideology although I don’t know what is going on in Germany. As for the issue of women’s spaces, it is a matter of safety.
Oh please. Ideology wins. A woman in my German city was cowed by her colleagues not to report her assault by a new arrival where she was volunteering. Safety is always unimportant to the people going for the glory and status.
Hm. One man online told me that HE would accept 1000 rapes and 300 murders to save a million refugees from “bombs and repression.”
Even this author goes on about women in power. They need to get into representation! And hardly give back to ordinary women. Meanwhile they will take their campaign contributions and create their charities which they will mostly exploit to fund their own families…
Women in charge are not going to make progress for ordinary women.
Women in Germany demanded the right to swim topless in public swimming pools. The right was recently granted.
Will men in women’s changing rooms be viewed as quite the same problem in Germany?
I ask this because demands by some feminist seem to be creating a grey area, especially since a certain section of feminism supports trans ideology.
“lost the sex based protections in Title IX”
No, women are now suffering from the natural consequences of the basic principle behind title 9: that women are to be considered to be biologically exactly the same as men, in fields where the latter are clearly superior or more interested (if it’s the other way, no issues). For example, sports, where male sports was cut down to provide equal quotas for weaker, inferior sportswoman. With the result that you have no ideological defense against trans “women’
And males are even now NOT “more protected” than females in any field of life. Just stop it.
“Losing reproductive freedom has also been devastating”
Again, you have NOT lost reproductive “freedom”, you have lost centrally mandated freedom to abort a baby at any point upto point of delivery.
The US has merely reached the same legal status as Europe – multiple states with differing rules. And most states in Europe don’t allow third trimester abortions. That doesn’t mean women in Europe don’t have “freedom”.
Reproductive freedom?? They are as free as ever in deciding to engage in risky sex that might result in creating a new human.
Too true Penny Adrian. There are stories coming out of the USA of men entering women’s change rooms, toilets etc and claiming the right to be there because they identify as women. In some cases, if the woman complains she is banned from the facility (especially in YMCA swimming pools etc).
“lost the sex based protections in Title IX”
No, women are now suffering from the natural consequences of the basic principle behind title 9: that women are to be considered to be biologically exactly the same as men, in fields where the latter are clearly superior or more interested (if it’s the other way, no issues). For example, sports, where male sports was cut down to provide equal quotas for weaker, inferior sportswoman. With the result that you have no ideological defense against trans “women’
And males are even now NOT “more protected” than females in any field of life. Just stop it.
“Losing reproductive freedom has also been devastating”
Again, you have NOT lost reproductive “freedom”, you have lost centrally mandated freedom to abort a baby at any point upto point of delivery.
The US has merely reached the same legal status as Europe – multiple states with differing rules. And most states in Europe don’t allow third trimester abortions. That doesn’t mean women in Europe don’t have “freedom”.
Reproductive freedom?? They are as free as ever in deciding to engage in risky sex that might result in creating a new human.
Save yourself the trouble, Brian. You’d be better off if you bought her a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia instead.
1
Save yourself the trouble, Brian. You’d be better off buying her a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia instead. What she needs is a “practical explanation” instead. Only the chaps over there can give her that, not you.
Women in the USA have lost the sex based protections in Title IX; the Biden administration has replaced sex with Gender ID in law, which means that males are now more protected than females in American schools, shelters, prisons, and sports.
Losing reproductive freedom has also been devastating for many US women.
The Dems were too busy erasing women from women’s rights to give a damn.
The attack on women’s rights these days is coming from the American Left as much as from the American Right.
“a majority of Gen Z and millennials think that women’s rights have gone too far.”
If you actually follow the link, that’s not at all what this survey says. Younger voters aren’t turning against women’s rights; they are perceiving that both sexes have rights that must be balanced. From the actual survey: “52 per cent of Gen Z and millennials say society has gone so far in promoting women’s rights that it is discriminating against men”. Characterizing this as a reversal of women’s rights is disingenuous at best, unless one believes that women’s rights are the only rights that matter.
“The contemporary USA, where the recent decline in women’s rights has been most precipitous”
This is absurd. Other than abortion, can someone name me ANY way in which women in America have recently lost any “right” they previously had? And abortion isn’t even a women’s rights issue anymore, since men can get pregnant!
Come to think of it, the largest threat to women’s rights in America today are actually from men who are winning women’s awards by pretending to be women. The White House just bestowed “woman of the year” on a man! Talk about an affront to women’s rights.
Looking at women’s rights in a larger context though: the right to walk down the street without fear, the right to not be abandoned by your husband, the right to a society that allows a middle class standard of living on 1 income, the right to get off the sinking ship first… the last 60 years has been disastrous for women’s rights. In fact, one could reasonably argue that the biggest beneficiaries of the sexual revolution (and associated women’s movements) have been men: men who are now free to view porn 24×7 online; men who expect women to put out on the first date instead of after the ring; men who expect their wives to be breadwinners while they play video games.
Your average single mom struggling to pay the bills after her boyfriend abandoned her with 2 kids might be more than willing to trade places with a 1950’s (or maybe even 1450’s) woman.
Ivory tower elitist rubbish.
“Of course, any “golden age” claim has to come with a caveat: women did not have the vote”
What a ridiculous statement. Neither did men, until 1918.
In 1918 a coalition government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, enfranchising all men over 21, as well as all women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications. Men were granted the vote in exchange for being called up to fight in the First World War.
Ten years later the remaining women got the vote. In 1928 the Conservative government passed the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 equalizing the franchise to all persons, male and female, over the age of 21.
“the gender pay gap has widened since the Seventies”
More nonsense. There is no gender pay gap. There is an earnings gap that is a result of mothers working fewer hours and part time jobs. I know it must be difficult for an elite academic to understand this but many women actually want to work less and spend time raising their children. It’s an example of the “choice” that feminist claim is their right.
The author also refers to coverture, whereby “a woman’s property became her husband’s after marriage – a wife’s legal identity was “covered” over by her husband.”
What she fails to mention is that if the wife, in the process of running her own business and earning her own money got into debt, coverture resulted in the husband being imprisoned until the debt was paid. The wife was never held legally responsible.
“Neither did men, until 1918.”
That’s a bit disingenuous considering the Reform Acts of 1832 & 1867 isn’t it?
Otherwise splendid!
This comments conversation is a key reason I subscribe. Well done both of you.
The 1832 Reform Act was only the first step of universal suffrage, and only extended the vote to a small number of men. This increased over time, but even by the time of the Representation of the People Act in 1918, around half of UK men still didn’t have the right to vote. Most of the men killed in WWI died without the right to vote.
Feminists continually perpetuate this myth that only women couldn’t vote prior to 1918, when in reality for the vast majority of British history the vast majority of British men couldn’t vote either.
Janice Fiamengo has written and talked extensively on her blog and YouTube videos titled Fiamengo File (under the channel Studio B) on what she views as the myths of feminism, paying particular attention to documents of the time.
Not wishing to be too pedantic but William Shaw’s original statement was therefore incorrect as it stands.
However another anomaly was that up until 1964 you could be hanged* at 18 but not vote until you were 21.
Incidentally were women subject to National Service 1945-1962?
(*Both sexes.)
Nope: no two wasted years of 0530 reveille for Britain’s young women, of mind-numbing square-bashing, itchy serge battledress, stagging on guard or wandering Salisbury Plain half the night in the rain, being treated like an idiot, shivering in Nissen huts, eating third-rate grub, skiving round air bases armed with a clipboard or being shot or bombed in Palestine/ Korea/ Cyprus/ Malaya/ Kenya/ Aden. And all for about two bob a week. No wonder Britain had a labour shortage in the late forties and fifties (hence Empire Windrush and all the followed).
For some reason la Turner seems unaware of all that.
Bad luck!
For the vast majority of history 90% of people have lived in far worse conditions. The conditions you describe would have been endured by many people undertaking unskilled work and living in slums as late as the early 1960s. Was the death rate amongst NS men higher or lower than those working in coal mining or commercial trawling?
There is another view. A NCO who had grown up during the Depression in an industrial area, then seen combat in Commandos/SF where if caught, they would have been executed,may have considered the NS personnel slightly soft.
Bad luck!
For the vast majority of history 90% of people have lived in far worse conditions. The conditions you describe would have been endured by many people undertaking unskilled work and living in slums as late as the early 1960s. Was the death rate amongst NS men higher or lower than those working in coal mining or commercial trawling?
There is another view. A NCO who had grown up during the Depression in an industrial area, then seen combat in Commandos/SF where if caught, they would have been executed,may have considered the NS personnel slightly soft.
Nope: no two wasted years of 0530 reveille for Britain’s young women, of mind-numbing square-bashing, itchy serge battledress, stagging on guard or wandering Salisbury Plain half the night in the rain, being treated like an idiot, shivering in Nissen huts, eating third-rate grub, skiving round air bases armed with a clipboard or being shot or bombed in Palestine/ Korea/ Cyprus/ Malaya/ Kenya/ Aden. And all for about two bob a week. No wonder Britain had a labour shortage in the late forties and fifties (hence Empire Windrush and all the followed).
For some reason la Turner seems unaware of all that.
Janice Fiamengo has written and talked extensively on her blog and YouTube videos titled Fiamengo File (under the channel Studio B) on what she views as the myths of feminism, paying particular attention to documents of the time.
Not wishing to be too pedantic but William Shaw’s original statement was therefore incorrect as it stands.
However another anomaly was that up until 1964 you could be hanged* at 18 but not vote until you were 21.
Incidentally were women subject to National Service 1945-1962?
(*Both sexes.)
Target error.
Apologies, not my intention.
It’s my understanding that the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts enfranchised head of household males however, the property qualifications required by the Acts still meant that a majority of working men could not vote.
The push to enfranchise more men as a result of fighting in the wars of 1793 to 1815. Voting rights has always been based upon whether one pays tax and whether one fights in wars. One had to be worth a certain amount to vote. The exceptions we Yorkshire where far more men had the vote, possibly because in the areas of Danelaw serfdom was far less and Westminster where if one had a front door and a hearth one coul vote.
The Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Germans allowed far more freedom for women than romans and this was mentioned by Tacitus and arab travellers.
Property rights in Europe become important post Charlemagne. Military rule of provinces became hereditary and resulted in the creation of a military aristocracy who held and passed on land to their children. The Norman Conquest introduces feudal rules some 200 years after they developed in Continental Europe. The Common Law is basically the evolution of Anglo Saxon Law with some added Roman /Cannon Law.The Charter of Liberties of 1100 re-introduces Anglo Saxon Law which is further refined by Magna Carta of 1215 AD which leads to the Model Parliament of 1295 AD.Edward The Third said ” That which which affects all must be consulted by all”.The Parliament of 1295 AD is similar to the Anglo Saxon Witan. The reasonability and common sense of Anglo Saxon traditions make the the rigid Normal Feudal Law more flexible, hence practical to create the English Common Law.
I think the Anarchy of 1138 to 1153 where Matilda fought Stephen led to a breakdown of some of the most rigid aspect of Feudal Law. Lady Antonia Fraser has said warfare benefits women as it breaks down rigid barriers – do what works becomes the motto. Men and woman had to work out how to live and work together to survive. If a practice increased survival it was adopted, if it led to death, violence and starvation it was ignored. Jobs have often been based upon physical strength. Cutting down trees with an axe and transporting them requires massive strength, being a carpenter far less.
This comments conversation is a key reason I subscribe. Well done both of you.
The 1832 Reform Act was only the first step of universal suffrage, and only extended the vote to a small number of men. This increased over time, but even by the time of the Representation of the People Act in 1918, around half of UK men still didn’t have the right to vote. Most of the men killed in WWI died without the right to vote.
Feminists continually perpetuate this myth that only women couldn’t vote prior to 1918, when in reality for the vast majority of British history the vast majority of British men couldn’t vote either.
Target error.
Apologies, not my intention.
It’s my understanding that the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts enfranchised head of household males however, the property qualifications required by the Acts still meant that a majority of working men could not vote.
The push to enfranchise more men as a result of fighting in the wars of 1793 to 1815. Voting rights has always been based upon whether one pays tax and whether one fights in wars. One had to be worth a certain amount to vote. The exceptions we Yorkshire where far more men had the vote, possibly because in the areas of Danelaw serfdom was far less and Westminster where if one had a front door and a hearth one coul vote.
The Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Germans allowed far more freedom for women than romans and this was mentioned by Tacitus and arab travellers.
Property rights in Europe become important post Charlemagne. Military rule of provinces became hereditary and resulted in the creation of a military aristocracy who held and passed on land to their children. The Norman Conquest introduces feudal rules some 200 years after they developed in Continental Europe. The Common Law is basically the evolution of Anglo Saxon Law with some added Roman /Cannon Law.The Charter of Liberties of 1100 re-introduces Anglo Saxon Law which is further refined by Magna Carta of 1215 AD which leads to the Model Parliament of 1295 AD.Edward The Third said ” That which which affects all must be consulted by all”.The Parliament of 1295 AD is similar to the Anglo Saxon Witan. The reasonability and common sense of Anglo Saxon traditions make the the rigid Normal Feudal Law more flexible, hence practical to create the English Common Law.
I think the Anarchy of 1138 to 1153 where Matilda fought Stephen led to a breakdown of some of the most rigid aspect of Feudal Law. Lady Antonia Fraser has said warfare benefits women as it breaks down rigid barriers – do what works becomes the motto. Men and woman had to work out how to live and work together to survive. If a practice increased survival it was adopted, if it led to death, violence and starvation it was ignored. Jobs have often been based upon physical strength. Cutting down trees with an axe and transporting them requires massive strength, being a carpenter far less.
‘Of course, any “golden age” claim has to come with a caveat: women did not have the vote, many were abused, exploited, badly paid and they generally died quite young. ‘
Every one of these hazards was also faced by men.
Yet she doesn’t seem to feel that’s relevant.
It would be so refreshing to read a feminist writer with a balanced sense of perspective, but hey, I suppose that’s a contradiction in terms. At least some of the content about medieval women was passably interesting and rationally argued. It’s a shame the second half of her piece didn’t continue along the lines argued so correctly by William Shaw in the comments above. His post would have made a far better conclusion to Turner’s piece than her own predictable and myopic final paragraphs.
Yet she doesn’t seem to feel that’s relevant.
It would be so refreshing to read a feminist writer with a balanced sense of perspective, but hey, I suppose that’s a contradiction in terms. At least some of the content about medieval women was passably interesting and rationally argued. It’s a shame the second half of her piece didn’t continue along the lines argued so correctly by William Shaw in the comments above. His post would have made a far better conclusion to Turner’s piece than her own predictable and myopic final paragraphs.
My 10 year old daughter came back from Girl Guides the other night where they had had a talk about “The Gender Pay Gap”. She asked me why it was fair that men got paid more than women for doing the same job? I said it was because women were very gossipy and liked to take time out during the day to chat with each other whereas men worked hard and got the job done. She seemed to buy it.
Good man!
Of course it couldn’t be because men feel more entitled and so demand more, and bosses tend to respond favourably to their demands.
It’s amazing that companies employ men at all seeing that they could get the same quality but at a cheaper price for a female equivalent.
It’s amazing that companies employ men at all seeing that they could get the same quality but at a cheaper price for a female equivalent.
Good man!
Of course it couldn’t be because men feel more entitled and so demand more, and bosses tend to respond favourably to their demands.
Clearly, the 1450s were worse for women than now. Not only did they not have the right to vote in national elections, but they not drive cars. The only flying they could do was on broomsticks, and even that carried a death sentence. There was a version of the European Union called the Holy Roman Empire but even back then, England was not in it. Also, their access to TikTok and other essential social media was very restricted.
Haha! That’s good – and just about the level of historical knowledge and argument one gets from graduate BBC-Guardian-Times-FT ‘left-liberals’ these days.
In fact when Mary Tudor was on the throne she was married to Philip II of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor. We were as good as in the HRE but with certain reserved powers. David Starkey’s youtube talks on this are interesting.
Haha! That’s good – and just about the level of historical knowledge and argument one gets from graduate BBC-Guardian-Times-FT ‘left-liberals’ these days.
In fact when Mary Tudor was on the throne she was married to Philip II of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor. We were as good as in the HRE but with certain reserved powers. David Starkey’s youtube talks on this are interesting.
Ah, but the upsides of couverture aren’t part of her grievance narrative….
Given your TA Para background 03, why are you NOT on today’s NI discussion?
Given your TA Para background 03, why are you NOT on today’s NI discussion?
“Neither did men, until 1918.”
That’s a bit disingenuous considering the Reform Acts of 1832 & 1867 isn’t it?
Otherwise splendid!
‘Of course, any “golden age” claim has to come with a caveat: women did not have the vote, many were abused, exploited, badly paid and they generally died quite young. ‘
Every one of these hazards was also faced by men.
My 10 year old daughter came back from Girl Guides the other night where they had had a talk about “The Gender Pay Gap”. She asked me why it was fair that men got paid more than women for doing the same job? I said it was because women were very gossipy and liked to take time out during the day to chat with each other whereas men worked hard and got the job done. She seemed to buy it.
Clearly, the 1450s were worse for women than now. Not only did they not have the right to vote in national elections, but they not drive cars. The only flying they could do was on broomsticks, and even that carried a death sentence. There was a version of the European Union called the Holy Roman Empire but even back then, England was not in it. Also, their access to TikTok and other essential social media was very restricted.
Ah, but the upsides of couverture aren’t part of her grievance narrative….
Ivory tower elitist rubbish.
“Of course, any “golden age” claim has to come with a caveat: women did not have the vote”
What a ridiculous statement. Neither did men, until 1918.
In 1918 a coalition government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, enfranchising all men over 21, as well as all women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications. Men were granted the vote in exchange for being called up to fight in the First World War.
Ten years later the remaining women got the vote. In 1928 the Conservative government passed the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 equalizing the franchise to all persons, male and female, over the age of 21.
“the gender pay gap has widened since the Seventies”
More nonsense. There is no gender pay gap. There is an earnings gap that is a result of mothers working fewer hours and part time jobs. I know it must be difficult for an elite academic to understand this but many women actually want to work less and spend time raising their children. It’s an example of the “choice” that feminist claim is their right.
The author also refers to coverture, whereby “a woman’s property became her husband’s after marriage – a wife’s legal identity was “covered” over by her husband.”
What she fails to mention is that if the wife, in the process of running her own business and earning her own money got into debt, coverture resulted in the husband being imprisoned until the debt was paid. The wife was never held legally responsible.
I’m an American woman and the only rights I see in decline are those being usurped by men in makeup. Silly article.
I’m an American woman and the only rights I see in decline are those being usurped by men in makeup. Silly article.
“In 1978, higher-educated mothers earned 72% of the wages of equivalent fathers; in 2019, the figure was 69%.”
Where do these figures come from? Average yearly wages? Daily wages? What population? What level of wages?
When women are highly qualified with a university degree, they often earn more than men at the beginning of their career. Once they decide to have a child they often abandon their career, at least temporarily, because they obviously don’t want to abandon their child. And then if they realize how important motherhood is, and have a loving and caring partner who earns enough, they stay at home. Women in lower paid jobs don’t have this freedom.
So why the hell should there be no gap? Do women have to attend a job even if they don’t want? Or shouldn’t society, that’s all of us, protect these women who want to dedicate themselves to the wellbeing of their children, and the future of our society? Beware of the birth gap!
Very good point. Statistics need to be read very carefully. The one you quoted fooled me until you pointed out my block-headed mistake.
Note for my fellow block-heads:
It compares two groups; “educated fathers” and “educated mothers”. It doesn’t differentiate between people who are “in the workforce” and those who aren’t. Since more women (an unstated quantity) stay home to care for young children this statistic is useless to discern who is more valued at work.
Very good point. Statistics need to be read very carefully. The one you quoted fooled me until you pointed out my block-headed mistake.
Note for my fellow block-heads:
It compares two groups; “educated fathers” and “educated mothers”. It doesn’t differentiate between people who are “in the workforce” and those who aren’t. Since more women (an unstated quantity) stay home to care for young children this statistic is useless to discern who is more valued at work.
“In 1978, higher-educated mothers earned 72% of the wages of equivalent fathers; in 2019, the figure was 69%.”
Where do these figures come from? Average yearly wages? Daily wages? What population? What level of wages?
When women are highly qualified with a university degree, they often earn more than men at the beginning of their career. Once they decide to have a child they often abandon their career, at least temporarily, because they obviously don’t want to abandon their child. And then if they realize how important motherhood is, and have a loving and caring partner who earns enough, they stay at home. Women in lower paid jobs don’t have this freedom.
So why the hell should there be no gap? Do women have to attend a job even if they don’t want? Or shouldn’t society, that’s all of us, protect these women who want to dedicate themselves to the wellbeing of their children, and the future of our society? Beware of the birth gap!
Please, will the day ever come when a woman can get a place on a board, or we can hope for a female Prime Minister or head of the Supreme Court?
No, it won’t … because all the power is monopolised by those horrid men working as bin-collectors, in the sewers, on building sites, in shipyards, down mines, on trawlers, in trenches laying pipes and cables … and they will never, never ever, loosen their grip on the status and power they hold over women.
Please, will the day ever come when a woman can get a place on a board, or we can hope for a female Prime Minister or head of the Supreme Court?
No, it won’t … because all the power is monopolised by those horrid men working as bin-collectors, in the sewers, on building sites, in shipyards, down mines, on trawlers, in trenches laying pipes and cables … and they will never, never ever, loosen their grip on the status and power they hold over women.
You Feminists – you deny biology and would have vegan cats and solitary starlings and then demand everyone say that was normal.
Man and woman. Put children in a room of toys – boys get guns, girls get doll things. Put boys in a room of doll things and the boys use Barbies as gun, and girls in a room of toy weapons, and they will be dressing up pistols as if dolls.
Anyway – in a world of sex denying Lefty-Liberals all which has been achieved is virtually the end of the Family, complete end of extended family, and thus end of Church, Community, Love, and mental health and a sense of well being and purpose.
The boys are out killing them selves with Fentanyl, and the girls are chronically depressed.
Well Done Feminists. You can have sex with anyone at all – but it looks like that is it – just with anyone, but not with a ‘Till Death Do Us Part, Husband’ because you exterminated them.
This goes for a lot of things. You can ‘save the planet’ as long as you put up with the collateral damage. It is too easy to say things without real meaning.
You seem to have entirely failed to understand either what feminism is, or what leads to the views and attitudes of children. To start with the issue of boys choosing guns etc – how old are these children? What messages have they received – from birth – about how they should be, as a boy or as a girl? There’s plenty of research demonstrating that if someone is handed a baby and told it’s a boy, they handle that baby differently, speak to it differently, from how they treat a baby they believe to be a girl. Add in parental role models, attitudes around the family, TV etc etc – and the notion that a boy ‘innately’ prefers guns (heaven help us) is just ridiculous.
The term ‘feminism’ is now applied to a great deal of nonsense that has zilch to do with what feminism began as. But the notion that it’s about having sex with lots of people is absurd (and I don’t quite understand how it’s both that and ‘sex-denying’). Believe it or not, feminism is about enabling women to have control of their own lives, and to have choices about how they lead those lives.
As an aside, the end of the extended family is nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. It’s about an economy that demands mobility for work and punishes those (male or female) not willing to move away from the family, friends and community they’d rather stay with.
He who controls the definition of the words controls the conversation. Your definition of “feminism” is obviously not the same one as Elliott’s. And I have no idea which is correct in today’s world.
Answer: neither is correct. But each believes he/she/they is/are correct.
Depends which wave you are on.
Depends which wave you are on.
Answer: neither is correct. But each believes he/she/they is/are correct.
You can’t just separate men from women and say,”This is what women want.”
We are a species, arguably like lizards or birds. If the female bird says, “I don’t want to lay eggs, I don’t want to be attractive to male birds, I don’t want any children – I just want to sing all day like him, I will tweet my ideas to the world.”
Then that species will die out. Meanwhile, a more aggressive species will come into the area. The females will want to lay at least six eggs per year because the next generation is the most important thing. Soon, this aggressive species will take over everything and the other birds will have to get permission to fly about every day to look for food. The other species will get so hungry that they will steal food. For that they will have one wing plucked to stop them from flying.
Interesting. But here’s a comforting observation. I’ve dated some radical far-left feminists in my time (it’s like going undercover) and they want to be beautiful and treated as special by guys and given attention just like regular girls do. It’s all an act.
You can’t change how you are wired ….
Interesting. But here’s a comforting observation. I’ve dated some radical far-left feminists in my time (it’s like going undercover) and they want to be beautiful and treated as special by guys and given attention just like regular girls do. It’s all an act.
You can’t change how you are wired ….
“the notion that a boy ‘innately’ prefers guns (heaven help us) is just ridiculous”
No YOU are a ridiculous fanatic for a barmy gender cult. You clearly haven’t had any children (don’t lie in your response please …). Someone has removed your common sense circuits.
He who controls the definition of the words controls the conversation. Your definition of “feminism” is obviously not the same one as Elliott’s. And I have no idea which is correct in today’s world.
You can’t just separate men from women and say,”This is what women want.”
We are a species, arguably like lizards or birds. If the female bird says, “I don’t want to lay eggs, I don’t want to be attractive to male birds, I don’t want any children – I just want to sing all day like him, I will tweet my ideas to the world.”
Then that species will die out. Meanwhile, a more aggressive species will come into the area. The females will want to lay at least six eggs per year because the next generation is the most important thing. Soon, this aggressive species will take over everything and the other birds will have to get permission to fly about every day to look for food. The other species will get so hungry that they will steal food. For that they will have one wing plucked to stop them from flying.
“the notion that a boy ‘innately’ prefers guns (heaven help us) is just ridiculous”
No YOU are a ridiculous fanatic for a barmy gender cult. You clearly haven’t had any children (don’t lie in your response please …). Someone has removed your common sense circuits.
Elliott, I am a 60+ woman and I can tell you, you are wrong about the toys. I loved playing bang bang you’re dead as a child and I never dressed up anything because dolls bored me. I really loved my chemistry set, my lego, my plastic animals and my racing cars. Many other women can tell you the same story.
Children – and adults – are much more varied, complex and interesting than you give them credit for. Moreover, feminists don’t deny biology. Since our biology is the cause of our oppression it would be ridiculous and self-defeating for us to do so.
Had a husband. Didn’t like marriage; am much happier out of it. Have loved being a mum. And I’m just one person. How many others are out there, happily defying your one-size-fits-all narrative?
Elliott was, of course, generalising and the fact that you point out you didn’t match his generalisation implies he was right.
That may be true but wasn’t in my case. I loved dolls and all the girly stuff, couldn’t wait to wear makeup. By the sales volumes I suspect retailers would be more inclined to agree; a few anecdotes won’t change reality.
Yup. My Little Pony for the girls. Transformer robots for the boys. That seems to apply 99.9% of the time.
Yup. My Little Pony for the girls. Transformer robots for the boys. That seems to apply 99.9% of the time.
Elliott was, of course, generalising and the fact that you point out you didn’t match his generalisation implies he was right.
That may be true but wasn’t in my case. I loved dolls and all the girly stuff, couldn’t wait to wear makeup. By the sales volumes I suspect retailers would be more inclined to agree; a few anecdotes won’t change reality.
I can confirm what you said about inherent biological differences, based on what I have seen with my daughter.
But – even though she is extremely girly, she still takes a lot of interest in Legos, maths, computer games, the usual stereotypically bit stuff.
The reason being that her father actively worked on inculcating an interest on these things, bringing stem toys, etc. She still loves and prefers doll stuff though, but at least she has broader horizons.
A big problem with feminism is that it focuses on rights and outcomes. Problem is, you don’t do well in something because you have a right to do it. You do well because you are interested in it. And the typical upper class princess have no interest in guy stuff, either football, Tech, Maths PHDs…. They only know resentment for not being handed those on a platter without any effort or interest.
You beautifully describe how a parent can go with the flow of stereotypical preferences (actually biological drives), while at the same time doing your best to broaden out their range of interests and expand their world. Well done for being a great dad to your daughter. I would guess as a result that your daughter probably has a better understanding of the weirdness of menfolk and is in a better position to form positive mutually beneficial relationships with them.
You beautifully describe how a parent can go with the flow of stereotypical preferences (actually biological drives), while at the same time doing your best to broaden out their range of interests and expand their world. Well done for being a great dad to your daughter. I would guess as a result that your daughter probably has a better understanding of the weirdness of menfolk and is in a better position to form positive mutually beneficial relationships with them.
This goes for a lot of things. You can ‘save the planet’ as long as you put up with the collateral damage. It is too easy to say things without real meaning.
You seem to have entirely failed to understand either what feminism is, or what leads to the views and attitudes of children. To start with the issue of boys choosing guns etc – how old are these children? What messages have they received – from birth – about how they should be, as a boy or as a girl? There’s plenty of research demonstrating that if someone is handed a baby and told it’s a boy, they handle that baby differently, speak to it differently, from how they treat a baby they believe to be a girl. Add in parental role models, attitudes around the family, TV etc etc – and the notion that a boy ‘innately’ prefers guns (heaven help us) is just ridiculous.
The term ‘feminism’ is now applied to a great deal of nonsense that has zilch to do with what feminism began as. But the notion that it’s about having sex with lots of people is absurd (and I don’t quite understand how it’s both that and ‘sex-denying’). Believe it or not, feminism is about enabling women to have control of their own lives, and to have choices about how they lead those lives.
As an aside, the end of the extended family is nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. It’s about an economy that demands mobility for work and punishes those (male or female) not willing to move away from the family, friends and community they’d rather stay with.
Elliott, I am a 60+ woman and I can tell you, you are wrong about the toys. I loved playing bang bang you’re dead as a child and I never dressed up anything because dolls bored me. I really loved my chemistry set, my lego, my plastic animals and my racing cars. Many other women can tell you the same story.
Children – and adults – are much more varied, complex and interesting than you give them credit for. Moreover, feminists don’t deny biology. Since our biology is the cause of our oppression it would be ridiculous and self-defeating for us to do so.
Had a husband. Didn’t like marriage; am much happier out of it. Have loved being a mum. And I’m just one person. How many others are out there, happily defying your one-size-fits-all narrative?
I can confirm what you said about inherent biological differences, based on what I have seen with my daughter.
But – even though she is extremely girly, she still takes a lot of interest in Legos, maths, computer games, the usual stereotypically bit stuff.
The reason being that her father actively worked on inculcating an interest on these things, bringing stem toys, etc. She still loves and prefers doll stuff though, but at least she has broader horizons.
A big problem with feminism is that it focuses on rights and outcomes. Problem is, you don’t do well in something because you have a right to do it. You do well because you are interested in it. And the typical upper class princess have no interest in guy stuff, either football, Tech, Maths PHDs…. They only know resentment for not being handed those on a platter without any effort or interest.
You Feminists – you deny biology and would have vegan cats and solitary starlings and then demand everyone say that was normal.
Man and woman. Put children in a room of toys – boys get guns, girls get doll things. Put boys in a room of doll things and the boys use Barbies as gun, and girls in a room of toy weapons, and they will be dressing up pistols as if dolls.
Anyway – in a world of sex denying Lefty-Liberals all which has been achieved is virtually the end of the Family, complete end of extended family, and thus end of Church, Community, Love, and mental health and a sense of well being and purpose.
The boys are out killing them selves with Fentanyl, and the girls are chronically depressed.
Well Done Feminists. You can have sex with anyone at all – but it looks like that is it – just with anyone, but not with a ‘Till Death Do Us Part, Husband’ because you exterminated them.
Assuming that ability is evenly spread over the sexes, what proportion of women want to represent themselves in Parliament or the Judiciary, board rooms and financial institutions? They have dominated in fields like primary education, nursing and publication – so perhaps they could expand into other areas – if they wanted to. We do see individual women doing ‘desirable’ work, so the opportunities exist.
Assuming that ability is evenly spread over the sexes, what proportion of women want to represent themselves in Parliament or the Judiciary, board rooms and financial institutions? They have dominated in fields like primary education, nursing and publication – so perhaps they could expand into other areas – if they wanted to. We do see individual women doing ‘desirable’ work, so the opportunities exist.
Thank you for this – just goes to show that the notion of “progress” when applied to history is highly problematical. History is best studied without applying a modern scale at values or preconceived notions – those are blinkers that stop us from seeing the reality of historical phenomena, something that is difficult enough to achieve in the best of circumstances.
Thank you for this – just goes to show that the notion of “progress” when applied to history is highly problematical. History is best studied without applying a modern scale at values or preconceived notions – those are blinkers that stop us from seeing the reality of historical phenomena, something that is difficult enough to achieve in the best of circumstances.
How was the question of Women and equality asked of genZ et. all… As much as I resent the Woke ideology of generations younger than my own, I refuse to take the suggestion that they think women’s rights have gone to far on face value without detail or reference…
They are happily shouting down women’s sex based rights to single sex spaces and opportunities in favour of giving males who claim they feel like a woman access to those spaces etc… Hell, they’re trying to redefine what a woman is.
look at the shambolic International woman’s day where trans women were given `woman of the year awards’ for a sign of the times
They are happily shouting down women’s sex based rights to single sex spaces and opportunities in favour of giving males who claim they feel like a woman access to those spaces etc… Hell, they’re trying to redefine what a woman is.
look at the shambolic International woman’s day where trans women were given `woman of the year awards’ for a sign of the times
How was the question of Women and equality asked of genZ et. all… As much as I resent the Woke ideology of generations younger than my own, I refuse to take the suggestion that they think women’s rights have gone to far on face value without detail or reference…
On the point raised about women now being “expected to put out on the first date”, is sex regarded by the author as a chore?
Presuming females have availed themselves of the contraceptive pill, and women are regarded as being at least as highly sexed as men, what is the problem here? Again, assuming both partners are willing, isn’t one of the major advances for women the freedom to engage in sexual activity on the same basis as men?
If one or the other wishes to wait until a few dates down the line, all well and good – that might’nt necessarily be the female! But the assumption brought to bear that women are somehow oppressed by this is nonsense.
I’m not quite sure why you regard the contraceptive pill as an automatic solution to such dilemmas. The contraceptive pill is not suitable for a surprising number of women. It is associated with high blood pressure, increased risks of blood clots, strokes, certain kinds of cancers, including liver tumours and breast cancer. These risks increase with age, duration of use, weight, and family medical history. There’s also a wide range of common medications, medical issues and even dietary supplements that can interfere with its function. The vast majority of women do not take it perfectly and consider all of these risks, hence why the advertised effectiveness of around 99% tends to be much higher than the actual effectivess when large numbers of fallible human beings who miss doses, make themselves sick from drinking, and forget to use additional protection when they are on antibiotics (and for seven days after their final dose of such medications) whilst having lots of sex.
In addition, the contraceptive pill offers no protection against STIs, and even when condoms are used, they do not entirely negate the risks of sexually transmitted infections. Some of the above listed issues with effectiveness of use apply to condom use too, so their real world effectiveness tends to be lower than what is advertised based on testing under ideal conditions. Heterosexual women are also more vulnerable when it comes to STIs than heterosexual men overall, the basic mechanics of sex mean that women are more likely to be infected by their male partners than men are to be infected by their female partners, and men are more likely to have symptoms and seek timely treatment for STIs.
Finally, there’s issues such as the increasing number of treatment resistant STIs in circulation to consider. The pill may have been considered a massive step forward in allowing women to have sexual equality when it was first introduced, the reality has been far different, because practical realities of biology and human behaviour ensure that promiscuous sex has unpleasant consequences that human medicine cannot render moot, and many of those consequences still stack disproportionately on heterosexual women.
Condoms have all that, er, covered.
Except that they do not. They don’t claim 100% effectiveness against transmission of STIs any more than they claim 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy even when used perfectly under ideal conditions.
They claim up to 98% effectiveness at preventing STIs that are transmitted through bodily fluids when used correctly and consistently, but do not offer protection against all STIs. However, as previously stated, correct and consistent usage is the ideal, not the norm, when disorganised, horny and intoxicated human beings are part of the mix, hence the STI epidemic within our society at present.
Add to the that the issue of `stealthing’ where the male removes his condom without the permission of the partner.
Add to the that the issue of `stealthing’ where the male removes his condom without the permission of the partner.
Except that they do not. They don’t claim 100% effectiveness against transmission of STIs any more than they claim 100% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy even when used perfectly under ideal conditions.
They claim up to 98% effectiveness at preventing STIs that are transmitted through bodily fluids when used correctly and consistently, but do not offer protection against all STIs. However, as previously stated, correct and consistent usage is the ideal, not the norm, when disorganised, horny and intoxicated human beings are part of the mix, hence the STI epidemic within our society at present.
I need no lessons from anyone on the “mechanics of sex” and the ongoing health implications for women who take the pill, thanks.
Nothing in your post challenges my questioning of why the author indicated that women having sex when they choose to do so – and that might include a first date – was somehow an advantage.
The simple fact is, the pill offers women that choice and it should be welcomed. If they weigh the risks and rewards and decide not to do so – including perhaps for some of the health reasons you’ve put forward – that’s entirely up to them. Others seeking to make that choice for them isn’t helpful.
It’s mainly a response to your questioning how sex can be a chore and your insinuation that the contraceptive pill is somehow an assured method of women having sexual equality with men in terms of deciding to have sex.
Overall, I find much of the article itself to be full of the hyperbole, contradictions and inconsistencies that feminism tends to propagate, but I can’t really see how casual sex can be regarded as not being any kind of chore when the actual precautions for both men and women to minimise the unwelcome consequences of promiscuity are very much one, or that a premise that men and women are somehow sexually equal or equal in sexual desire can be justified given the very different kinds of risks and rewards that each party has to reason through, and differing hormonal cycles of men and women.
I mainly focussed on the issues of sexual promiscuity for women, but there are plenty of different ones that are more applicable for men, most notably, that in many cases, abstinence is the only method by which men can guarantee they aren’t going to be saddled with unwanted fatherhood.
It’s mainly a response to your questioning how sex can be a chore and your insinuation that the contraceptive pill is somehow an assured method of women having sexual equality with men in terms of deciding to have sex.
Overall, I find much of the article itself to be full of the hyperbole, contradictions and inconsistencies that feminism tends to propagate, but I can’t really see how casual sex can be regarded as not being any kind of chore when the actual precautions for both men and women to minimise the unwelcome consequences of promiscuity are very much one, or that a premise that men and women are somehow sexually equal or equal in sexual desire can be justified given the very different kinds of risks and rewards that each party has to reason through, and differing hormonal cycles of men and women.
I mainly focussed on the issues of sexual promiscuity for women, but there are plenty of different ones that are more applicable for men, most notably, that in many cases, abstinence is the only method by which men can guarantee they aren’t going to be saddled with unwanted fatherhood.
Condoms have all that, er, covered.
I need no lessons from anyone on the “mechanics of sex” and the ongoing health implications for women who take the pill, thanks.
Nothing in your post challenges my questioning of why the author indicated that women having sex when they choose to do so – and that might include a first date – was somehow an advantage.
The simple fact is, the pill offers women that choice and it should be welcomed. If they weigh the risks and rewards and decide not to do so – including perhaps for some of the health reasons you’ve put forward – that’s entirely up to them. Others seeking to make that choice for them isn’t helpful.
“isn’t one of the major advances for women the freedom to engage in sexual activity on the same basis as men?”
You make the common mistake of:
1.assuming that just because people might want something and be able to have it that it is a good thing/advance. It might be good in the freedom sense but bad in every other eg our freedom from being forced to be physically active.
2 that something that is good for the average man must be good for the average woman. Or vice versa. Men and women are diffferent and so often benefit from different things.
I’d argue that as wonderful as the pill is, it is a double edge sword. Before contraception pills were available, a woman could say no and cite fear of pregnancy. Now women are coerced and told they are frigid if don’t put out. Incels aren’t the only men who believe women owe them sex. Add to that the unrealistic expectations created by the 24hr availability of porn and things get messy.
New research has confirmed what we knew all along … the pill makes you fat, moody, increases cancer risk and also (REALLY!) it decreases libido.
It’s a wonder that any woman on the pill has sex at all (beer goggles, perhaps).
New research has confirmed what we knew all along … the pill makes you fat, moody, increases cancer risk and also (REALLY!) it decreases libido.
It’s a wonder that any woman on the pill has sex at all (beer goggles, perhaps).
Why is it a wonderful freedom to w***e yourself about. I’ve never understood that. And I was a young adult in the 1970s. And reality taught me a hard lesson about how most of the ideas we are taught re politics,ethics,equality etc are huge big fat lies and most ordinary,normal people live by much older, traditional values,they just keep quiet about it. That glamorous female entertainer at whom you laugh your socks at on tv (and she might even be a he) you’d protest to the local council of she moved in next door. Just saying ,life as we see it in the media and life as we live it everyday is two different things.
Not really – women get far more emotionally invested in sex than men do. They enjoy it as much as guys, but they attach a lot of emotional meaning to it.
Guys are easily led into sex but are often planning an exit as soon as the act is done. They can chalk it up to lust and bad judgement and “on to the next one”.
Truth.
I’m not quite sure why you regard the contraceptive pill as an automatic solution to such dilemmas. The contraceptive pill is not suitable for a surprising number of women. It is associated with high blood pressure, increased risks of blood clots, strokes, certain kinds of cancers, including liver tumours and breast cancer. These risks increase with age, duration of use, weight, and family medical history. There’s also a wide range of common medications, medical issues and even dietary supplements that can interfere with its function. The vast majority of women do not take it perfectly and consider all of these risks, hence why the advertised effectiveness of around 99% tends to be much higher than the actual effectivess when large numbers of fallible human beings who miss doses, make themselves sick from drinking, and forget to use additional protection when they are on antibiotics (and for seven days after their final dose of such medications) whilst having lots of sex.
In addition, the contraceptive pill offers no protection against STIs, and even when condoms are used, they do not entirely negate the risks of sexually transmitted infections. Some of the above listed issues with effectiveness of use apply to condom use too, so their real world effectiveness tends to be lower than what is advertised based on testing under ideal conditions. Heterosexual women are also more vulnerable when it comes to STIs than heterosexual men overall, the basic mechanics of sex mean that women are more likely to be infected by their male partners than men are to be infected by their female partners, and men are more likely to have symptoms and seek timely treatment for STIs.
Finally, there’s issues such as the increasing number of treatment resistant STIs in circulation to consider. The pill may have been considered a massive step forward in allowing women to have sexual equality when it was first introduced, the reality has been far different, because practical realities of biology and human behaviour ensure that promiscuous sex has unpleasant consequences that human medicine cannot render moot, and many of those consequences still stack disproportionately on heterosexual women.
“isn’t one of the major advances for women the freedom to engage in sexual activity on the same basis as men?”
You make the common mistake of:
1.assuming that just because people might want something and be able to have it that it is a good thing/advance. It might be good in the freedom sense but bad in every other eg our freedom from being forced to be physically active.
2 that something that is good for the average man must be good for the average woman. Or vice versa. Men and women are diffferent and so often benefit from different things.
I’d argue that as wonderful as the pill is, it is a double edge sword. Before contraception pills were available, a woman could say no and cite fear of pregnancy. Now women are coerced and told they are frigid if don’t put out. Incels aren’t the only men who believe women owe them sex. Add to that the unrealistic expectations created by the 24hr availability of porn and things get messy.
Why is it a wonderful freedom to w***e yourself about. I’ve never understood that. And I was a young adult in the 1970s. And reality taught me a hard lesson about how most of the ideas we are taught re politics,ethics,equality etc are huge big fat lies and most ordinary,normal people live by much older, traditional values,they just keep quiet about it. That glamorous female entertainer at whom you laugh your socks at on tv (and she might even be a he) you’d protest to the local council of she moved in next door. Just saying ,life as we see it in the media and life as we live it everyday is two different things.
Not really – women get far more emotionally invested in sex than men do. They enjoy it as much as guys, but they attach a lot of emotional meaning to it.
Guys are easily led into sex but are often planning an exit as soon as the act is done. They can chalk it up to lust and bad judgement and “on to the next one”.
Truth.
On the point raised about women now being “expected to put out on the first date”, is sex regarded by the author as a chore?
Presuming females have availed themselves of the contraceptive pill, and women are regarded as being at least as highly sexed as men, what is the problem here? Again, assuming both partners are willing, isn’t one of the major advances for women the freedom to engage in sexual activity on the same basis as men?
If one or the other wishes to wait until a few dates down the line, all well and good – that might’nt necessarily be the female! But the assumption brought to bear that women are somehow oppressed by this is nonsense.
Pre-Christian Roman women, such as Eumachia, Julia Domna and Hypatia to name but a few, had unimaginable freedom compared to Medieval or even early modern women.
This was not to be rectified until the late nineteenth century in the UK.
You can’t use a few famous women to justify this point. The roman legal system was almost parodically patriarchal. Gibbons chapters on the roman legal system are some of his best work. In fact he posits the position of women in the roman family to be the reason for so many women adopting christianity early on before it was institutionalised and he didn’t say this as a fan of the early christians, quite the opposite.
Much as I love Gibbon, scholarship on this subject has moved on in the last two hundred and fifty years.
By the late Republic- Early Empire woman had gained unprecedented legal and property rights. As a direct result of the concept of ‘sui iuris’ they had full agnatic control of property etc.
Thanks to Augustus’s ‘Ius Liberorum’ they gained further privileges, and so it continued until the advent of the necro-cult, otherwise known as Christianity.
You castigate me for “using the names of few famous women “. I did so for the sake of brevity and could have used many more. However let me add just one, Maesia Sentinas, you may find her interesting.
Presumably you are no descendant of Edward Gibbon?
“Where Ignorance is Bliss, ‘Tis Folly to be Wise.”*
(*TG)
I don’t think it has significantly – in fact some of his claims undersold the extent to which the male head of house had authority over all those underneath him. You say unprecendented – are you suggesting that things got worse after the early caesars?
“In the first ages, the father of a family might sell his children, and his wife was reckoned in the number of his children: the domestic judge might pronounce the death of the offender, or his mercy might expel her from his bed and house; but the slavery of the wretched female was hopeless and perpetual, unless he asserted for his own convenience the manly prerogative of divorce.” Gibbon. Fantastic stuff. He says things got better after the Punic wars however.
No, I’m saying things got progressively better from say the late Republic until the advent of Theodosius at the end of the fourth century. Do you seriously deny this?
No, I never did. I am just probing your claim of scholarship having “moved on” which to me implies there has been some serious debunking of Gibbon’s theories in this area (still unelucidated). The examples of the pre-roman rule of queens such as Cleopatra and the rise of Zenobia beyond roman authority being cases in point against roman egalitarianism. Is an eccentric curiosity as a female philosopher (Hypatia) a better example than Eleanor of Aquitaine or any other medieval queen who enjoyed the freedom of real authority? Or Joan of Arc (a peasant) holding the fate nations when Eumachia was just a rich man’s daughter in a provincial town whowe probably would never have heard of had Vesuvius not preserved her memory?
By your own admission Gibbon stated “that things got better after the Punic Wars” but then off course fails to mention the details that I have mentioned above. Why? perhaps because it would invalidate his later assertion that women flocked to Christianity because of their ‘servile’ position perhaps?
“The examples of the pre-roman rule of queens such as Cleopatra and the rise of Zenobia beyond roman authority being cases in point against roman egalitarianism.”
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Nether Cleopatra or Zenobia are relevant here.
OR this: “ Joan of Arc (a peasant) holding the fate nations when Eumachia was just a rich man’s daughter in a provincial town whowe* we probably would never have heard of had Vesuvius not preserved her memory?”
The whole point is that ,Eumachia, who you would call a ‘Commoner’ had complete financial and legal freedom in a Roman world, obsessed by legality, and a very far cry and fourteen hundred years before the medieval barbarianism of ‘unwashed’** fifteenth century France.
As for comparing Hypatia “an eccentric curiosity” in your words, to the unstable Eleanor of Aquitaine is truly banal.
My initial contention was that: “Pre-Christian Roman women had unimaginable freedom compared to Medieval or even early modern women”. Nothing you have said refuted this, even when you invoked the splendid Edward Gibbon.
Thanks for the chat.
(*sic.)
(** Jules Michelet, 1798-1874.)
Freedom varies over the ages. Generally speaking women have more freedom in Sparta than Athens, the Germanic and Scandinavian countries; where husbands are seafarers, live in the countryside as opposed to towns; there are no inherited aristocratic titles with power and/or land, nomadic. If a woman is free to walk and work such as a shepherdess, she will have more freedom than a women living in a town and the wool she sells will give her an income.
It is possible that the barbarians introduced a from of VD at the Fall of Rome and as did sailors returning from America with Columbus which made sex far more risky, especially for women. Also attitude to bastardy. William the b*****d was a son of a tanners daughter but was accepted by the aristocracy because his father Duke of Normandy acknowledged paternity. I would suggest that acceptance of bastards into the ruling class gives women far more freedom.Compare the freedom of Nell Gwynne in the 1660s with her son being made Duke of St Albans with most middle class women of the 1860s.
I don’t disagree with what you say but was trying to state the strictly legal position in Roman Law.
Incidentally there was little need of illegitimacy as ‘legal adoption’ was very widespread.
Was that statement about “sailors returning from America”, an oblique reference to syphilis ? I only ask because the latest research now indicates that ‘it’ was in Europe well before 1492.
Charles II has a LOT to answer for!
I don’t disagree with what you say but was trying to state the strictly legal position in Roman Law.
Incidentally there was little need of illegitimacy as ‘legal adoption’ was very widespread.
Was that statement about “sailors returning from America”, an oblique reference to syphilis ? I only ask because the latest research now indicates that ‘it’ was in Europe well before 1492.
Charles II has a LOT to answer for!
In your first paragraph I assume you mean “that” instead of “then”. I don’t believe you have actually challenged any of the assertions I have quoted with scholarship – as opposed to your opinion. I would be genuinely interested to hear some but it doesn’t seem likely I will get any.
My point with quoting the queens is that the legal status of women outside the empire could rise higher than that in it – which Tacitus notes in his Germania. That barbarian women were free was seen as a negative by roman society which it is documented as the view of the romans themselves.
Describing something as banal doesn’t make it untrue – in fact quite the opposite. It is a shame that you have to stoop to insult when someone has an educated difference of opinion. My wider point was that in any era you can pick out individuals who are not representative of the whole. not that any of the examples I gave are accurate representations of the status of women in those societies. In the same way Eleanor or Zenobia are not relevant, neither is any number of individually fascinating roman women.
To say that Eumachia had “complete financial and legal freedom” with no evidence does your argument no credit.
Freedom varies over the ages. Generally speaking women have more freedom in Sparta than Athens, the Germanic and Scandinavian countries; where husbands are seafarers, live in the countryside as opposed to towns; there are no inherited aristocratic titles with power and/or land, nomadic. If a woman is free to walk and work such as a shepherdess, she will have more freedom than a women living in a town and the wool she sells will give her an income.
It is possible that the barbarians introduced a from of VD at the Fall of Rome and as did sailors returning from America with Columbus which made sex far more risky, especially for women. Also attitude to bastardy. William the b*****d was a son of a tanners daughter but was accepted by the aristocracy because his father Duke of Normandy acknowledged paternity. I would suggest that acceptance of bastards into the ruling class gives women far more freedom.Compare the freedom of Nell Gwynne in the 1660s with her son being made Duke of St Albans with most middle class women of the 1860s.
In your first paragraph I assume you mean “that” instead of “then”. I don’t believe you have actually challenged any of the assertions I have quoted with scholarship – as opposed to your opinion. I would be genuinely interested to hear some but it doesn’t seem likely I will get any.
My point with quoting the queens is that the legal status of women outside the empire could rise higher than that in it – which Tacitus notes in his Germania. That barbarian women were free was seen as a negative by roman society which it is documented as the view of the romans themselves.
Describing something as banal doesn’t make it untrue – in fact quite the opposite. It is a shame that you have to stoop to insult when someone has an educated difference of opinion. My wider point was that in any era you can pick out individuals who are not representative of the whole. not that any of the examples I gave are accurate representations of the status of women in those societies. In the same way Eleanor or Zenobia are not relevant, neither is any number of individually fascinating roman women.
To say that Eumachia had “complete financial and legal freedom” with no evidence does your argument no credit.
By your own admission Gibbon stated “that things got better after the Punic Wars” but then off course fails to mention the details that I have mentioned above. Why? perhaps because it would invalidate his later assertion that women flocked to Christianity because of their ‘servile’ position perhaps?
“The examples of the pre-roman rule of queens such as Cleopatra and the rise of Zenobia beyond roman authority being cases in point against roman egalitarianism.”
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Nether Cleopatra or Zenobia are relevant here.
OR this: “ Joan of Arc (a peasant) holding the fate nations when Eumachia was just a rich man’s daughter in a provincial town whowe* we probably would never have heard of had Vesuvius not preserved her memory?”
The whole point is that ,Eumachia, who you would call a ‘Commoner’ had complete financial and legal freedom in a Roman world, obsessed by legality, and a very far cry and fourteen hundred years before the medieval barbarianism of ‘unwashed’** fifteenth century France.
As for comparing Hypatia “an eccentric curiosity” in your words, to the unstable Eleanor of Aquitaine is truly banal.
My initial contention was that: “Pre-Christian Roman women had unimaginable freedom compared to Medieval or even early modern women”. Nothing you have said refuted this, even when you invoked the splendid Edward Gibbon.
Thanks for the chat.
(*sic.)
(** Jules Michelet, 1798-1874.)
No, I never did. I am just probing your claim of scholarship having “moved on” which to me implies there has been some serious debunking of Gibbon’s theories in this area (still unelucidated). The examples of the pre-roman rule of queens such as Cleopatra and the rise of Zenobia beyond roman authority being cases in point against roman egalitarianism. Is an eccentric curiosity as a female philosopher (Hypatia) a better example than Eleanor of Aquitaine or any other medieval queen who enjoyed the freedom of real authority? Or Joan of Arc (a peasant) holding the fate nations when Eumachia was just a rich man’s daughter in a provincial town whowe probably would never have heard of had Vesuvius not preserved her memory?
No, I’m saying things got progressively better from say the late Republic until the advent of Theodosius at the end of the fourth century. Do you seriously deny this?
I don’t think it has significantly – in fact some of his claims undersold the extent to which the male head of house had authority over all those underneath him. You say unprecendented – are you suggesting that things got worse after the early caesars?
“In the first ages, the father of a family might sell his children, and his wife was reckoned in the number of his children: the domestic judge might pronounce the death of the offender, or his mercy might expel her from his bed and house; but the slavery of the wretched female was hopeless and perpetual, unless he asserted for his own convenience the manly prerogative of divorce.” Gibbon. Fantastic stuff. He says things got better after the Punic wars however.
“Where Ignorance is Bliss, ‘Tis Folly to be Wise.”*
(*TG)
Much as I love Gibbon, scholarship on this subject has moved on in the last two hundred and fifty years.
By the late Republic- Early Empire woman had gained unprecedented legal and property rights. As a direct result of the concept of ‘sui iuris’ they had full agnatic control of property etc.
Thanks to Augustus’s ‘Ius Liberorum’ they gained further privileges, and so it continued until the advent of the necro-cult, otherwise known as Christianity.
You castigate me for “using the names of few famous women “. I did so for the sake of brevity and could have used many more. However let me add just one, Maesia Sentinas, you may find her interesting.
Presumably you are no descendant of Edward Gibbon?
You can’t use a few famous women to justify this point. The roman legal system was almost parodically patriarchal. Gibbons chapters on the roman legal system are some of his best work. In fact he posits the position of women in the roman family to be the reason for so many women adopting christianity early on before it was institutionalised and he didn’t say this as a fan of the early christians, quite the opposite.
Pre-Christian Roman women, such as Eumachia, Julia Domna and Hypatia to name but a few, had unimaginable freedom compared to Medieval or even early modern women.
This was not to be rectified until the late nineteenth century in the UK.
Interesting stuff here but the defence of abortion was awful. How can it be a “right” to murder an unborn.
We’ll said (she doesn’t quite go into that but assumes it’s a universal “right” that only men deny and that all women agree should be a God given right).
Also, Roe v. Wade was one of the two or three most poorly argued and written opinions of the modern age (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as much). What is a crime (including whether abortion was “legal”) had always been left to the Several States until that ridiculous opinion, and after Dobbs, it’s now (drum roll) left to the Several States.
For those of you who weren’t around then, women could get an abortion in NEW York before Roe, and can still get an abortion after Dobbs. Mississippi is different, but not only men voted on it in the legislature (and voted for the legislators).
Generally, and historically, men had a greater interest in abortion than women. Can’t think why.
Cos they had to pay for the little b*****d.
Cos they had to pay for the little b*****d.
We’ll said (she doesn’t quite go into that but assumes it’s a universal “right” that only men deny and that all women agree should be a God given right).
Also, Roe v. Wade was one of the two or three most poorly argued and written opinions of the modern age (even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as much). What is a crime (including whether abortion was “legal”) had always been left to the Several States until that ridiculous opinion, and after Dobbs, it’s now (drum roll) left to the Several States.
For those of you who weren’t around then, women could get an abortion in NEW York before Roe, and can still get an abortion after Dobbs. Mississippi is different, but not only men voted on it in the legislature (and voted for the legislators).
Generally, and historically, men had a greater interest in abortion than women. Can’t think why.
Interesting stuff here but the defence of abortion was awful. How can it be a “right” to murder an unborn.
I’ll say. Scottish Boards comprising 5O% males who say they are male and 50% males who say they are female legally equally represent the sexes.
I’ll say. Scottish Boards comprising 5O% males who say they are male and 50% males who say they are female legally equally represent the sexes.
Anyone who cites the nonexistent “gender wage gap” as evidence of anything cannot be taken seriously on any subject.
Although as a medievalist, I do appreciate acknowledgment that medieval Europe was not a hellhole of patriarchial sexism in every day life.
Anyone who cites the nonexistent “gender wage gap” as evidence of anything cannot be taken seriously on any subject.
Although as a medievalist, I do appreciate acknowledgment that medieval Europe was not a hellhole of patriarchial sexism in every day life.
If the coverture laws came with the Norman invasion and Chaucer’s women with their increased freedom came long after that, how is that regression?
Good catch!
She did note that the plague(s) came along reducing populations. The smaller workforce of men available gave rise to women entering the `professions’
Good catch!
She did note that the plague(s) came along reducing populations. The smaller workforce of men available gave rise to women entering the `professions’
If the coverture laws came with the Norman invasion and Chaucer’s women with their increased freedom came long after that, how is that regression?
The author asks,”Why is social change so easily reversed?” Answer: because social change has become a fashion. It is all about how to be different, how to stand out from the crowd. Women wore mini-skirts to stand out. Then they covered up their legs to join the feminist fashion. I imagine that mini-skirts will be here soon.
“I imagine that mini-skirts will be here soon”.
God let’s hope NOT! Far too many fatties around today with those quivering lumpen legs/thighs.
It’s true, Chris, that social change has become a kind of fashion. By that, I mean, an end in itself and thus no different from the commercial slogan: “new, improved.” But I think that social change is ultimately more deeply rooted than any fashion, whether sartorial, commercial or ideological.
Social change occurs because change itself is a defining feature existence (for both living and non-living things) in the flux of this material world. This is why many religious traditions identify stasis (in the context of immortality, eternity, paradise lost, paradise regained and so on) as a defining feature of existence in some immaterial world–except for Buddhism, which sees existence itself (samsara: the cycles of birth, death and rebirth) as a painful illusion to be escaped by attaining enlightenment (nirvana) and finally “blowing out the flame” of existence.
That’s a long way of saying that every society is always an experiment. This is the context in which we must continually make choices, preferably with wisdom gained from the study of history and therefore of human nature, accepting the fact that some of these choices will eventually turn out to be mistakes. That leaves us with two questions: (a) whether this or that change is either beneficial or destructive and therefore (b) whether we should either foster or mitigate it.
In my opinion, a long series of ideological fashions (from rationalism to romanticism, from Marxism to postmodernism, from transgenderism to transhumanism, most recently from feminism to wokism,) has led us to some very useful insights but also to some profoundly destructive moral panics. And these might well lead, quickly, to the ultimate folly: collective suicide. The danger signs are all there for anyone to see: the open rejection of both reason and nature, the common denunciation of both common sense and common decency, all in the name of utopian fantasies.
“I imagine that mini-skirts will be here soon”.
God let’s hope NOT! Far too many fatties around today with those quivering lumpen legs/thighs.
It’s true, Chris, that social change has become a kind of fashion. By that, I mean, an end in itself and thus no different from the commercial slogan: “new, improved.” But I think that social change is ultimately more deeply rooted than any fashion, whether sartorial, commercial or ideological.
Social change occurs because change itself is a defining feature existence (for both living and non-living things) in the flux of this material world. This is why many religious traditions identify stasis (in the context of immortality, eternity, paradise lost, paradise regained and so on) as a defining feature of existence in some immaterial world–except for Buddhism, which sees existence itself (samsara: the cycles of birth, death and rebirth) as a painful illusion to be escaped by attaining enlightenment (nirvana) and finally “blowing out the flame” of existence.
That’s a long way of saying that every society is always an experiment. This is the context in which we must continually make choices, preferably with wisdom gained from the study of history and therefore of human nature, accepting the fact that some of these choices will eventually turn out to be mistakes. That leaves us with two questions: (a) whether this or that change is either beneficial or destructive and therefore (b) whether we should either foster or mitigate it.
In my opinion, a long series of ideological fashions (from rationalism to romanticism, from Marxism to postmodernism, from transgenderism to transhumanism, most recently from feminism to wokism,) has led us to some very useful insights but also to some profoundly destructive moral panics. And these might well lead, quickly, to the ultimate folly: collective suicide. The danger signs are all there for anyone to see: the open rejection of both reason and nature, the common denunciation of both common sense and common decency, all in the name of utopian fantasies.
The author asks,”Why is social change so easily reversed?” Answer: because social change has become a fashion. It is all about how to be different, how to stand out from the crowd. Women wore mini-skirts to stand out. Then they covered up their legs to join the feminist fashion. I imagine that mini-skirts will be here soon.
Nichola de la Haye is a fine example of a splendid mediaeval woman.
Buried in a very fine church with an impressive tomb complete with her dog.
Not far away you also have the redoubtable Katherine Swynford and her notable tomb.
The Lauren Sanchez or Kim Guilfoyle of her day.
Who?
Americans.
Thank you, I would never have guessed.
Thank you, I would never have guessed.
Americans.
Who?
The Lauren Sanchez or Kim Guilfoyle of her day.
Buried in a very fine church with an impressive tomb complete with her dog.
Not far away you also have the redoubtable Katherine Swynford and her notable tomb.
Nichola de la Haye is a fine example of a splendid mediaeval woman.
“A recent survey demonstrated, astonishingly, that a majority of Gen Z and millennials think that women’s rights have gone too far.”
Common sense yet lives! Indeed they have gone too far. Females are now the favored, pampered, entitled and privileged sex and the average woman leads a far more protected life than the average man. One can cherry-pick statistics that show female disadvantage, but one can also point to statistics proving the opposite.
“A recent survey demonstrated, astonishingly, that a majority of Gen Z and millennials think that women’s rights have gone too far.”
Common sense yet lives! Indeed they have gone too far. Females are now the favored, pampered, entitled and privileged sex and the average woman leads a far more protected life than the average man. One can cherry-pick statistics that show female disadvantage, but one can also point to statistics proving the opposite.
No, they did not. Egad.
No, they did not. Egad.
As for the last point about political representation. Women don’t hang about in the bars,clubs and restaurants making informal contacts and alliances with other barflys in a nebulous contacts network. And it seems to me that women ie female persons with the correct biological parts are redefining themselves as the weaker sex by citing everything from the onset of menstruation,to menopause,to child beating to fear of sexual attacks in public areas,how can you be “vulnerable ‘ in so many ways and need extra care and support yet still be fearless,strong and equal. No wonder trans ones have grabbed the old identity,it was fake in the first place.
If you want proof that a lot of men hate women, read the comments below an Unherd article on women.
If you want proof that some women don’t even listen to men, read the comments that challenge this or that aspect of feminist ideology–which is definitely not the same as hating women (that is, wanting to harm women). Feminist ideology is an ideology like any other, not divine revelation.
If you want proof that some women don’t even listen to men, read the comments that challenge this or that aspect of feminist ideology–which is definitely not the same as hating women (that is, wanting to harm women). Feminist ideology is an ideology like any other, not divine revelation.
If you want proof that a lot of men hate women, read the comments below an Unherd article on women.