Chauvinists make me sad

[callingcolleen]

I somehow found the audacity to ask a question regarding feminism on Yahoo answers. i was careful to de-select the gender studies category, however, and posted "Do people really still believe women belong in the home?" in the society and culture section. Want to cry? here's a good one:

If you look at your biology yes you do. Up until a few decades ago ALL work was hard manual labor (it still is in a very large portion of the world). As a woman are you going to be better than a man at hard manual labor? Not unless he's crippled or has some other handicap. Who has breasts to feed a child when it is hungry? Not men. If the women was out working and the guy at the house, what you get is less work being done and a hungry child. I'm sorry to say that you have lost touch with who you really are all because you have had feminism drilled in your head your whole life rather than looking at the facts.

Okay, yeah. in the old, old days when work literally was only manual labor that makes logical sense. but these days most jobs involve sitting at desks. which gender is more/less capable of that biologically?? neither!

and little does he know i was a chauvinist myself up until about a year and a half ago. so no, feminism has certainly not been drilled into my head my entire life. truth is, i used to hate feminists and find them highly irritating. incidentally, that was also during a time when i used drugs. coincidence? i think not.

had he worded his argument tastefully and refrained from insulting me directly i would've been more inclined to consider him a rational human being. having an opinion is fine, sophistry isn't.

enough ranting for today. i know lots of female chauvinists exist, so i'm not trying to discriminate against men here. but how many men do you think are chauvinists compared to moderates compared to feminists? i would say 50% are chauvinist, 40% are moderates and 10% are feminist. Of course, i'm in a bit of a mood right now so i'm probably overcompensating on the chauvinist side just a bit.

[lillerina]

It's actually a load of shite that all manual labour was done by men. Not true at all. Women have been working in agriculture since it began, and have you tried doing any of the things that are supposedly 'women's work'? Spinning is tough manual work, weaving is tough manual work, cleaning houses top to bottom counts as what, sitting on their arses now? Please.

[Sonic#]

^Seconded. Even when women were more often associated with the home, a lot of manual labor was tied into that. Growing crops, yes, which involves a whole lot of strength. Also, churning butter, brewing beer, and other forms of production were often located in the home. Also, carrying water, food, and the like were once strength activities. So women were involved in lots of labor, even when they weren't (officially or technically) allowed to be part of a guild or skilled labor system.

Anyway, I've seen questions like it on Yahoo Answers. In a place like that, you'll get good answers along with distasteful ones, especially ones on gender or religion.That's why I generally stick to just answering questions.

[God is an Englishman]

Without being a sexist. Which gender generally is considered to be physically stronger? And how was this derived.

enough ranting for today. i know lots of female chauvinists exist, so i'm not trying to discriminate against men here. but how many men do you think are chauvinists compared to moderates compared to feminists? i would say 50% are chauvinist, 40% are moderates and 10% are feminist. Of course, i'm in a bit of a mood right now so i'm probably overcompensating on the chauvinist side just a bit.

Double standard. Where's the proof to this claim?

[spacefem]

Never read the "gender studies" on yahoo answers... unless you want proof that we need a feminist movement, I guess. It's literally 99% woman hate on there, I'm pretty sure.

[callingcolleen]

Without being a sexist. Which gender generally is considered to be physically stronger? And how was this derived.

enough ranting for today. i know lots of female chauvinists exist, so i'm not trying to discriminate against men here. but how many men do you think are chauvinists compared to moderates compared to feminists? i would say 50% are chauvinist, 40% are moderates and 10% are feminist. Of course, i'm in a bit of a mood right now so i'm probably overcompensating on the chauvinist side just a bit.

Double standard. Where's the proof to this claim?

i don't have proof because none exists. i am not saying this is fact. i was estimating because i really don't know.

[monk]

The three main agricultural skills that men dominated were hunting, plowing, and chopping wood. Male dominance came about because drawing a bow and swinging a sword or axe require extra upper body physical strength that men possess in a greater amount than women. So when wars for territory were fought men did most of the fighting thus the patriarchy was born.


All that blather about men being superior at hard labor is just that, blather. Most of the work done in an agricultural setting required not immense strength of power but of endurance. Working from dawn to dusk was damn hard on both the men and women. During the planting and harvest times everybody worked side by side to sow seeds and reap the harvest. Men hunted and women stayed home because of the children yes, but once we domesticated our meat animals men and women worked together much of the day taking care of farm tasks. The only real times that men did different tasks was during plowing in the spring and gathering wood in the fall in preparation for winter when that upper body strength made it logical for men to do those tasks.

Take a 17th century peasant woman who miraculously avoided plague, small pox, cholera,etc. and lived for several good years on a farm and she would likely have the natural upper body strength to put 80% of todays men to shame in power AND endurance simply because her everyday life was a work out.

[God is an Englishman]

The three main agricultural skills that men dominated were hunting, plowing, and chopping wood. Male dominance came about because drawing a bow and swinging a sword or axe require extra upper body physical strength that men possess in a greater amount than women. So when wars for territory were fought men did most of the fighting thus the patriarchy was born.

In some eastern European countries, it is the males responsibility to take care of the female and prevent harm coming to her. Hence why Czech and Russian men always went to war.

[monk]

In some eastern European countries, it is the males responsibility to take care of the female and prevent harm coming to her. Hence why Czech and Russian men always went to war.

No, they weren't protecting their women,they were protecting their assets. Just as in many cultures through out Europe, blood lines were important but mostly for their ability to breed strong sons to carry on the family name, preserve the family lands etc. Women were bought and sold from family to family through the dowry system like so many brood mare horses and were protected only for their reproductive ability. If the woman proved infertile, or only produced daughters (even though science has proved it's the sperm that control the sex of the child) they were often set aside or outright killed. So this going to war to proteks de wiminz is bullshit, it was more I really like your winter grazing land and since I can't sell you my daughter to get access to it I will send my second oldest son to kick your ass and take it from you, and since son#2 wasn't going to inherit diddly he was more than happy to try to carve out a little fiefdom of his own out of the neighbors parcel of dirt in the hope he could get rich enough to buy someone elses son producing fertile daughter.

[Aum]

Well, biologically speaking, women tend to be less mobile than men when they have a baby to deal with, and in the pre-modern world there were opportunity costs involved in not being able to leave the home. That is why men ended up having to do it. Keep in mind that in a lot of areas there were community networks available where groups of people helped in child rearing so this was less of an issue. In western europe for example it was more common for both young men AND women to help with the domestic duties, including caring for kids and whatever else. It was when men became teenagers that they were trained in outside duties more.

All this means is that in addition to lugging a kid around, women were also involved in agriculture and domestic duties while men were hunting and doing trades. And women were STILL involved with trapping near the home, which could span acres - clearing those traps and often resetting them. This dispels the myth that men have always been more laborious than women. They had no modern luxuries. All food, cleaning, husbandry, work with animals, and crop growing was done by manual labour only. Women were working hard and they still do!

Also keep in mind that women were not persons back then and so if a man was defending his property, that would necessarily include his wife and the rest of his family. Ownership was all tied to men and male lines.

I don't really see the point of this discussion. Biological determinism affects us way less in the modern world and our perception of it may not even be accurate in the first place. The pre-modern world was complicated and diverse, and there was little if any globalization back then. Every region was doing similar things but in very different ways. You are born with what you're born with but how you decide to use that is up to culture and personal choice.

[Rainbow Dolphins]

Without being a sexist. Which gender generally is considered to be physically stronger? And how was this derived.

Because clearly, anything believed by society at large should be taken on faith as true and go unchallenged.

[God is an Englishman]

In some eastern European countries, it is the males responsibility to take care of the female and prevent harm coming to her. Hence why Czech and Russian men always went to war.

No, they weren't protecting their women,they were protecting their assets. Just as in many cultures through out Europe, blood lines were important but mostly for their ability to breed strong sons to carry on the family name, preserve the family lands etc. Women were bought and sold from family to family through the dowry system like so many brood mare horses and were protected only for their reproductive ability. If the woman proved infertile, or only produced daughters (even though science has proved it's the sperm that control the sex of the child) they were often set aside or outright killed. So this going to war to proteks de wiminz is bullshit, it was more I really like your winter grazing land and since I can't sell you my daughter to get access to it I will send my second oldest son to kick your ass and take it from you, and since son#2 wasn't going to inherit diddly he was more than happy to try to carve out a little fiefdom of his own out of the neighbors parcel of dirt in the hope he could get rich enough to buy someone elses son producing fertile daughter.

Crock really. This complete paragraph really insults my grandfather. He was Ukrainian and he went to war to protect his beloved wife from the nazi's and the communists. Not all are like that, but I'm sure he never would of called my grandmother "an asset" sounds to me the fact of love is completely overlooked here. My grandmother loved my grandfather, just like my father loved my mother, and my dad was also a soldier. My family didn't get any land from the marriage, they got love and that's all they needed.

[monk]

Crock really. This complete paragraph really insults my grandfather. He was Ukrainian and he went to war to protect his beloved wife from the nazi's and the communists. Not all are like that, but I'm sure he never would of called my grandmother "an asset" sounds to me the fact of love is completely overlooked here. My grandmother loved my grandfather, just like my father loved my mother, and my dad was also a soldier. My family didn't get any land from the marriage, they got love and that's all they needed.

Marrying for love is mostly a 20 century construct. I am not trying to insult your grandfather, I am insulting your great great great grandfather. If you want to know how your grandmother was treated, find out if she was allowed to vote, own property, or a business of her own or whether she had the choice when she became an adult of moving out of her parents home into one of her very own without a male relative or husband to "protect" her. If there was true equality of the sexes in the Ukraine your grandmother wouldn't need a man's protection. I am sure there were laws back then saying you couldn't just beat on someone and that would include women, so what are the men protecting women from? Much of it comes down to how a culture is stuctured, In the 1900's in the Ukraine, if a womans parents passed away and left assets to their only daughter, was she allowed to inherit if she was very young or single? or were the assets held in trust to the nearest male relative until she got married and then they passed to her husband. Even if she got married for love, her inability to own anything pretty much reduces her to being the property of the man owning responsibleprotecting her.

As for my paragraph being crock, take a look at this history of the Ukraine and still say that

[Aum]

^ I agree that love marriages are a modern concept.

Plus... Eastern Europe 100 years ago? Even now it's not exactly a bastion of civil liberties!

[Sonic#]

Marrying for love is mostly a 20 century construct.

I cluck my tongue at this for two reasons. First, romantic love could often appear in marriages before this, whether or not the motivations for marriage were love as we now think of it. I think of the aristocratic courtly love tradition that started in the 12th century, and its gradual spread to lower classes after that. I need not go there, though - aristocracy may have had the loudest voice on love historically, but they had no monopoly on affection. Second, love can easily coincide and complicate an otherwise unequal situation. Yes, women had a status between people and property, but they were often loved, even if the terms of that love weren't the same. Yes, notions of alliance, propriety, and sustenance often meant that women were the keys in exchanges of property, but I wouldn't underestimate the effects of love, which exists as an idea, a doctrine, and a sincere experience at the same time.

So I find it hard to be harsh on people before the 20th century. As someone today, I think it's right to not idealize the past, or to pretend that things weren't going on when they were. However, love - as a system to be cynical about and as a sincere experience - happened, and it takes understanding that to understand how prejudices can persist in close relationships.

[monk]

I'm not saying that there was no love involved but much of that love evolved after the fact vs. before the fact of marriage.

As for the courtly love of the 12th century, family considerations were still a prevalent factor in love matches since those that weren't already allied in some fashion were unlikely to associate together in courtly circles.

[God is an Englishman]

Marrying for love is mostly a 20 century construct.

I don't think that's completely true. I agree woman were in many cases an item of trade BUT there are many cases where that's not true.

I am not trying to insult your grandfather, I am insulting your great great great grandfather.

OH! How nice of you! Can you tell me about him, who he was, what he worked as?

If you want to know how your grandmother was treated, find out if she was allowed to vote, own property, or a business of her own or whether she had the choice when she became an adult of moving out of her parents home into one of her very own without a male relative or husband to "protect" her.

You obviously missed that part in history featuring the communists and nazi's huh. My grandfather had none of that practically, and that was to do with his race. Same goes for my grandmother. Oh and my grandmother didn't have a father around, he was killed and her family lived in fear. She moved with my grandfather by choice.

If there was true equality of the sexes in the Ukraine your grandmother wouldn't need a man's protection. I am sure there were laws back then saying you couldn't just beat on someone and that would include women, so what are the men protecting women from?

Ah, laws in a country run by the secret police. This is the law, shut up and do as I say or die. Then the nazi's come along, you're a slav you must die. I'd assume he was protecting her from that?

Much of it comes down to how a culture is stuctured, In the 1900's in the Ukraine,

Stop there! The Ukraine emerged in 1922 as it's own country, well under the rule of Moscow.

As for my paragraph being crock, take a look at this history of the Ukraine and still say that

Yea well you said people didn't go out of the home to protect their family because they loved them, that's not the case so it's crock still!

Marrying for love is mostly a 20 century construct.

I cluck my tongue at this for two reasons. First, romantic love could often appear in marriages before this, whether or not the motivations for marriage were love as we now think of it. I think of the aristocratic courtly love tradition that started in the 12th century, and its gradual spread to lower classes after that. I need not go there, though - aristocracy may have had the loudest voice on love historically, but they had no monopoly on affection. Second, love can easily coincide and complicate an otherwise unequal situation. Yes, women had a status between people and property, but they were often loved, even if the terms of that love weren't the same. Yes, notions of alliance, propriety, and sustenance often meant that women were the keys in exchanges of property, but I wouldn't underestimate the effects of love, which exists as an idea, a doctrine, and a sincere experience at the same time.

So I find it hard to be harsh on people before the 20th century. As someone today, I think it's right to not idealize the past, or to pretend that things weren't going on when they were. However, love - as a system to be cynical about and as a sincere experience - happened, and it takes understanding that to understand how prejudices can persist in close relationships.

I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with that.

[Butterfly North]

I am not trying to insult your grandfather, I am insulting your great great great grandfather.

OH! How nice of you! Can you tell me about him, who he was, what he worked as?

Woah, will you chill out? Monk was explaining that he was talking about a period of time before your grandfather, in a jokey way. You were making generalisations about why men in Eastern Europe 'always' go to war, he was countering them with an example. I don't really know the history of the Ukraine well enough to take a position.

You were responding to Monk's statements about biological differences between the sexes with a (now disputed) statement about the impact of culture on behaviour - I'm assuming you were making a point somewhere there, but it got lost in the dispute! Anyway, because we were talking about biology I think people were thinking about way back in the past, i.e. the point in time at which such behaviour could be evolved. Because of that they thought you were talking about further back than you actually were.

[God is an Englishman]

I am not trying to insult your grandfather, I am insulting your great great great grandfather.

OH! How nice of you! Can you tell me about him, who he was, what he worked as?

Woah, will you chill out? Monk was explaining that he was talking about a period of time before your grandfather, in a jokey way. You were making generalisations about why men in Eastern Europe 'always' go to war, he was countering them with an example. I don't really know the history of the Ukraine well enough to take a position.

You were responding to Monk's statements about biological differences between the sexes with a (now disputed) statement about the impact of culture on behaviour - I'm assuming you were making a point somewhere there, but it got lost in the dispute! Anyway, because we were talking about biology I think people were thinking about way back in the past, i.e. the point in time at which such behaviour could be evolved. Because of that they thought you were talking about further back than you actually were.

No actually I was countering the accusation that all men only went to war over assets and not to protect loved ones.

More so, not just that, but even woman went to war in eastern Europe to defend their families, it was a tough time when all were needed.

[monk]

No actually I was countering the accusation that all men only went to war over assets and not to protect loved ones.

More so, not just that, but even woman went to war in eastern Europe to defend their families, it was a tough time when all were needed.

But my argument was that women were assets, so they were part of the reason men went to war, but so were the cattle and goats and land and before the 20th century land was a more likely reason for war than women were.(again,see history link I posted)

As for the Nazi's, the ones who truly wanted to protect their families, gathered them up and ran like hell or at the very least shipped their families away. Those that stayed to fight, were fighting to protect their countries(ie land & assets) otherwise they wouldn't have risked their lives, they would have just left.

and I apologize about the snarkiness about your ancestors.

[God is an Englishman]

No actually I was countering the accusation that all men only went to war over assets and not to protect loved ones.

More so, not just that, but even woman went to war in eastern Europe to defend their families, it was a tough time when all were needed.

But my argument was that women were assets, so they were part of the reason men went to war, but so were the cattle and goats and land and before the 20th century land was a more likely reason for war than women were.(again,see history link I posted)

As for the Nazi's, the ones who truly wanted to protect their families, gathered them up and ran like hell or at the very least shipped their families away. Those that stayed to fight, were fighting to protect their countries(ie land & assets) otherwise they wouldn't have risked their lives, they would have just left.

and I apologize about the snarkiness about your ancestors.

Monk come now. That's simply not true. Ask yourself, where do you run to? You have little money, to the east is the Russians, to the West is the nazi's. You can't sit there and say there was not a single, or even many circumstances where people had no choice. Remember, some people did try to flee, and were killed anyway, so imagine being part of that, feeling like you had no option.

[great girl wonder]

I feel the need to point out that Monk seems to be speaking from a sociological view not a personal one. That does not mean he's being cold or harsh. Englishman seems to be speaking from personal experiences which are also fine and well.
Generally though it would make discussions about social or cultural constructs simpler if everyone tried to discuss them from sociological or anthropological views rather than personal. We can't say your family was one way or another. Of course no one actually refers to their spouse as an 'asset'(except me). That does not change the truth of the matter. Monk is talking about how societies function as a whole, not how individual families see their lives.

[God is an Englishman]

I feel the need to point out that Monk seems to be speaking from a sociological view not a personal one. That does not mean he's being cold or harsh. Englishman seems to be speaking from personal experiences which are also fine and well.
Generally though it would make discussions about social or cultural constructs simpler if everyone tried to discuss them from sociological or anthropological views rather than personal. We can't say your family was one way or another. Of course no one actually refers to their spouse as an 'asset'(except me). That does not change the truth of the matter. Monk is talking about how societies function as a whole, not how individual families see their lives.

Granted. However my point is the society didn't completely act this way. Agreed that not many would refer to a woman as an asset, but there are obvious situations where you can determine she is treated as such. There are also situations where she is not treated that way.

[monk]

Granted. However my point is the society didn't completely act this way.

Okay, I will concede your point as long as you can admit that when you say "didn't completely" you understand that you're talking about a minority example. A small minority example.

[God is an Englishman]

Granted. However my point is the society didn't completely act this way.

Okay, I will concede your point as long as you can admit that when you say "didn't completely" you understand that you're talking about a minority example. A small minority example.

Consider this then monk. How many people were actually rich in some of these countries? Therefore would sell their daughter away. The rich were the minority, and therefore couldn't give their daughter for land, as hardly anybody owned any land! Places like the Czech Republic and Ukraine didn't do this on mass. You're thinking of France, Italy etc. These places were extremely poor and all they had to offer is each other. I'm not dismissing that woman were sold off! I'm dismissing it was as common as you're saying it is in some places. Further to add, there was a massive gap between rich and poor in the Ukraine! So with so many unable to even afford bread, what did they have to offer other families!

Since the government controlled most assets, bureaucrats who managed these assets could use their connections to sell off national assets and pocket the money. As a joke goes, don't ask me where I got my first million. Hence, the popular view is that anyone who is rich today must have robbed the nation at some point to get his starting capital.

So the government owns the land, how would you sell someone off to gain government land? Short answer you can't.

Until perestroika, country folk weren't allowed to move to the city.

Isolated and owning nothing, once again this reinforces my point about people having nothing but each other. You were not allowed to "sell off" anyone, as that would go against the rules of the Soviet state.

Westerners note that gender roles in Ukraine tend to be more traditional. Not only do men open doors for women and gallantly hold their hand as they step out of the bus, but women tend to dress more femininely and accentuate their attractiveness more than in most western countries. During courtship men tend to be more romantic, bringing flowers and gifts (and footing the bills during dates), and women try to look especially elegant. Sometimes the contrast between stunningly attractive women and their shodilly dressed, poor-postured boyfriends is remarkable. There are definitely double standards of grooming in Ukraine.
Gender roles are often quite traditional in the home as well. The stereotype is that the wife does the cooking and cleaning, while the husband takes care of repairs. When guests come over the wife heads to the kitchen to prepare food, even if it is her own birthday party. Husbands tend to be either workaholics or "lazy bums" that often suffer from apathy and alcoholism. These stereotypes are more true of older generations and smaller towns and villages.

Today you will find many people who do not fit these stereotypes. In Ukraine there is no such thing as militant feminism, but there are many couples — especially among younger generations — where work around the home is divided more equally. Some husbands even admit they do most of the cooking. Just as in other countries of the world, true friendship and shared interests are becoming greater factors in choosing a spouse as opposed to ability to act out gender roles. However, Ukraine is still years or decades behind the rest of Europe in this regard, as traditional gender roles still prevail.

Obviously there are some things there that will effect people, and yes the Ukraine has some way to go! But where does it confirm the "sales" of people in exchange for other "assets".