@hawkeye10,
Sure it does. Women doing labor service on the manor farm means they were doing "man's work." Women inheriting the strip fields mean they had those fields to work and they had to provide the labor service which attached them to those fields. Doing the dairy, the brewery, the loom and the fulling vat meant that they did labor additional to your fantasy of a division of labor, so you're not going to be able to prove that women thought there was a fair division of labor.
What's hilarious is that you need to have this explained to you.
@wayne,
Quote:I don't see it that way, male/female relations are a cooperative venture.
Relationships are both cooperative and combative. You are only seeing the half that you want to see, it is a habit formed when we try to see only the good in ourselves, when we resist seeing the shadow as Jung put it or the evil with-in us as the Christians put it. I prefer to not use the standard sugar coating, to take things as they really are and do the best I can with it.
Quote:There never was a "power dynamic", the Judeo-Christian model was never about control.
Riight...that is why the Church took over every part of human life and tried to control it from Rome.... why the church was so loath to give up control that we had to have the Reformation, why we had the Crusades to extend control, and endless wars over trivial matters of spiritual ideology. You can see the legacy of the need to control in the missionaries even to this day, as they labor in Third World lands to save the heathens..
@Setanta,
Quote:Sure it does. Women doing labor service on the manor farm means they were doing "man's work." Women inheriting the strip fields mean they had those fields to work and they had to provide the labor service which attached them to those fields. Doing the dairy, the brewery, the loom and the fulling vat meant that they did labor additional to your fantasy of a division of labor, so you're not going to be able to prove that women thought there was a fair division of labor.
Working the land was everybodies work including the kids, though as machines took over the work there was less to do, farming over time became mans work for a short period of time. And when child labor was no longer required we invented child labor laws, and the modern version of childhood.
@hawkeye10,
Quote:Relationships are both cooperative and combative. You are only seeing the half that you want to see, it is a habit formed when we try to see only the good in ourselves, when we resist seeing the shadow as Jung put it or the evil with-in us as the Christians put it. I prefer to not use the standard sugar coating, to take things as they really are and do the best I can with it.
Just a post ago you denied the existence of male dominance, i.e. the dark side of the dynamic. Now you want to claim I only see half of it.
I've not attempted to sugar coat anything.
Jung never intended society to throw up thier hands and say "the devil made me do it".
Society can and does improve upon itself.
Quote:Riight...that is why the Church took over every part of human life and tried to control it from Rome.... why the church was so loath to give up control that we had to have the Reformation, why we had the Crusades to extend control, and endless wars over trivial matters of spiritual ideology. You can see the legacy of the need to control in the missionaries even to this day, as they labor in Third World lands to save the heathens
This is so far out of context of the discussion as to be ridiculous.
@hawkeye10,
You're out of your depth, Bubba. You're spouting nonsense on a subject which i have read all my life and about which you know nothing, which you demonstrate every time you make this **** up. Educate yourself. Labor service was for a set number of days, usually one day a week, three days at plowing and planting, and coninuously when the harvest was brought in. Women didn't owe labor service, and children only worked the fields if their parents decided they wanted or needed the labor.
Child labor continued until well into the 19th century and it was ended by Parliament in England, not because it wasn't "needed," but because the Peelite Tories considered it a blot on the nation's character. Witnesses at Parliamentary hearings told of children asleep at the looms, going through the motions, and continuing after the looms had been shut down (they didn't do shift work in those days). Men were usually paid for piece work, and they often brought their wives and chilren into the mills just to meet their quotas and maybe, just maybe to get a little extra cash. Children were used in the mines because they would fit into small spaces, until Parliament ended that. Labor reform and child labor laws didn't come in in the United States until the early 20th century.
Quote:One woman told me that her mother had gone into that mill and worked, and took four children with her. She says, "I have been in the mill since I was four years old. I am now thirty-four." She looked to me as if she was sixty. She had a kindly nature if treated right, but her whole life and spirit was crushed out beneath the iron wheels of Comer's greed. When you think of the little ones that his mother brings forth you can see how society is cursed with an abnormal human being. She knew nothing but the whiz of a machinery in the factory.
Source at Spartacus-dot-schoolnet
You just make this **** up as you go along, and you've got no basis for your claims.
@Setanta,
Quote:Child labor continued until well into the 19th century and it was ended by Parliament in England, not because it wasn't "needed," but because the Peelite Tories considered it a blot on the nation's character
that is the feel good explanation, the real reason is the child labor took work and wages out of the pockets of those who voted, which after the Enlightment became a big problem.
Quote: Labor reform and child labor laws didn't come in in the United States until the early 20th century.
taming a wild North America took a lot of work, we did not have excess workers as the continent did at the time. Over time, as the natives and land were subdued, and as immigrants continued to stream in child labor became a problem. It was only then that we got rid of it, with the customary lies about why and backslapping about how great we are.
@hawkeye10,
Jesus, you are so clueless. Apparently, you are unaware that not even 5% of adult, white males voted in England in 1830--and none of them were factory workers. Look up the Reform Bill some time. You can't seem to avoid making yourself look a fool.
Quote:This concentrated on a reduction of hours for women and children as a means of reducing those of all adults, indirectly. The campaign had a strong evangelical and philanthropic drive similar to that which had motivated Wilberforce, and there were also elements of humanitarianism to be found in the campaign. To some extent, the whole 'Ten-Hour Movement' was a tangent aspect to the whole free trade debate and it became a pawn in the bigger game and rarely was discussed dispassionately. The debates of factory reform and the repeal of the Corn Laws were all part of the same question, and both causes crossed all lines of interest. The leaders of the Factory campaign came from very different backgrounds and were united with the working man in the fight against the inhumanities of factory labour. Most had little to gain personally from this involvement. The origins of the movement were moral and religious, not economic. The Ten-Hour Campaign therefore had a moral quality and was deemed to be a crusade. (emphasis added)
Source at A Web of English History. Do you know anything about Parliamentary reform in England in the 19th century? Do you know who she is referring to when she writes about Wilberforce? Are you really so clueless as to think you can pull this off by bullshitting?
hatred from women stems from rejection or because your a knights templar. "the company of women is a dangerous thing....", i will not and refuse to mention the word "Gay"
@wayne,
Quote:Just a post ago you denied the existence of male dominance, i.e. the dark side of the dynamic. Now you want to claim I only see half of it.
combat only becomes dominance if one side is always stronger than the other, this has not normally been the case in the combat between the sexes. I denied that males have dominated females for thousands of years, I do not deny that man and women have been combative during that time, or that there was never male dominance. However, in my opinion dominance of the males was never the big problem during the 20th century, the real problem was the because of technology women had too much time on their hands, and their work became not challenging, which over time ate into their self respect, which had the inevitable effect of producing emotional and mental problems, which they naturally took out on men. We saw the beings of this problem during the mid 1800's in Europe, where we see the lack of work playing out in Fin-De-Siecle culture were women were placed on a pedestal and were infantilized as post enlightenment era science really began to bit into the workload with their newly created machines. The men at that point began appropriating the remaining work for themselves, leaving the women bored and increasingly susceptible to neurosis. The problem of inequality between the sexes dates only back to this time, however, women own part of the problem because it was always the womans job to speak up or herself and to call men out when they screw up. Still, men of today need to admit that men of that era were more responsible for this error than were the women. This does not mean what the feminists claim that it as we men of today are not responsible for what the men of 250 years ago did, we men must resist all of the guilt tripping that is pushed our way.
Hatred of women is basically stupid, u hate women then it is because you are stupid, nothing else, AND no reason can bypass the word stupid, possibly stronger bad words, but stupid, is probably the best word to use. To round everything up, you r stupid, brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull, dumb, dummy*, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, laughable, loser*, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, shortsighted, simple, simpleminded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick, thick-headed, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking or witless, but still stupid.
@BDV,
Quote:Hatred of women is basically stupid
It does tend to get in the way of getting laid, which probably helps to account for why so few men hate women.
@BDV,
You are blowharding, which isn't that helpful, except as an outlet for frustration.
@roger,
You think you can, but I'm not so sure you can.
If someone thinks something is funny that you do not, it might say more about you than the other person.
If someone thinks it is funny to spoon out a person's eyes, you can easily conclude that the person is sick. Is that telling you a lot about the person? It may tell you all you need to know, but it hardly tells you a lot.
If someone thinks that a sexist joke is funny, what does that tell you about the person?
Someone who unfailingly treats women with respect might find a sexist joke funny. I suspect that you would conclude that the former is not possible because of the latter.
That's silly.
It's certainly possible that someone might find someone having their eyes spooned out - within a given context - to be funny and that fact doesn't reveal them to be a psychopath.
Almost everyone thinks it is funny when someone slips on a banana peel, but what does it tell you about the individual who does?
There are men that hate women and there are women that hate women. The reason is always pathological and never justified.
However, because some men hate women certainly doesn't mean that everyone anyone labels as a Woman-Hater is, in fact, a misogynist.
This is one of those threads that tries to masquerade as a serious question, when it really is merely a means to castigate a member whose opinions the originator doesn't appreciate.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:This is one of those threads that tries to masquerade as a serious question, when it really is merely a means to castigate a member whose opinions the originator doesn't appreciate.
since that member doesn't appear to be aware of threads he doesn't start, he'll never know, so you don't have to feel too badly for him
@Finn dAbuzz,
It is a serious question, jackass, and if you had actually bothered to read the thread, you'd have known that.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It is a serious question, jackass, and if you had actually bothered to read the thread, you'd have known that.
Admittedly, I have not read the entire thread; however, from what I can glean, it makes reference to heterosexual men that may have issues with women. If that is true, in my opinion, there is an entire subculture of gay males that live in a very man-only world. I say this in context of the possibly heterosexual false belief that gay males get along "fabulously" with women. Well, some do, but I believe there is that subset of gay males that basically avoid women.
I do not know if at present there is a lesbian bar in the Castro [gay] District of San Francisco, but for decades there was not even one, based on some magazine I read years ago. So, for all the supposed image of LGBT bonding, there might have been an avoidance of women by some of the gay male community there?
@ehBeth,
Thank you ehBeth as you have confirmed my take on the reason for this thread.
I don't really care whether the target of Setanta's scorn is aware of this thread. For all I know, he/she deserves such scorn (I have no idea as to who the alleged miscreant might be; nor do I care to).
I assure you I don't feel badly for the target of Setanta's ire. If I was inclined to, I would find myself feeling badly for hundreds of members and acknowledging that his ire has some measure of significance.
@Setanta,
It may, ultimately, be a serious question, but the jackass who posed it diminished it's credibility by his inability to resist a smug insult directed at someone who doesn't meet his incredibly narrow and egoistically formed criteria for legitimacy.
