Philosophy Discussion Forums

I read Veblen once. He was a social Darwinist, wasn't he, Anyway, I thought oppression began with the invention of the wheel, but you may be right.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑January 11th, 2018, 2:54 pm I read Veblen once. He was a social Darwinist, wasn't he, Anyway, I thought oppression began with the invention of the wheel, but you may be right.

I think oppression clearly begins with slaveholding. The enslavement of women is particularly vicious in that it always means that slaveholders will have slave offspring, tying the enslaved woman to her oppressor.

Remember that these traditional societies were all evil slavers. Slavery is evil because of the interpersonal reality of it, societal sanction does not excuse it.

Oppression started with plain old nature - the patriarchal society inherited from our evolutionary forebears. It surely didn't finish with that as chiefs and a few tribal strongmen would form oppressive cliques (again, not miles from the dynamics in chimp colonies) which dominated not just females, but other males, who would often be denied mating rights unless they fought and won against a dominant.

Fast forward and you have feudal societies and, later, early democracies where only dominant males were permitted a vote. It appears that the "natural order" has returned and there was no need to deprive women of the vote. While everyone has a vote, now corporations dominate political agendas, most with boardrooms largely populated by - you guessed it - cliques of dominant males.

Greta wrote: ↑January 11th, 2018, 8:01 pm Oppression started with plain old nature - the patriarchal society inherited from our evolutionary forebears. It surely didn't finish with that as chiefs and a few tribal strongmen would form oppressive cliques (again, not miles from the dynamics in chimp colonies) which dominated not just females, but other males, who would often be denied mating rights unless they fought and won against a dominant.

I think you'll find that slavery systems are different. Formalized slavery is a very different kettle of fish from animal behavior and is not really part of the small-group neolithic society we usually think of - but if it does come in my understanding is that kidnapped "brides" are the beginning of slaveholding cultures.

Fast forward and you have feudal societies and, later, early democracies where only dominant males were permitted a vote. It appears that the "natural order" has returned and there was no need to deprive women of the vote. While everyone has a vote, now corporations dominate political agendas, most with boardrooms largely populated by - you guessed it - cliques of dominant males.

Yes but again, the first "democracies" were slaveholding cultures. We would find the norms of Greece and Rome to be totally abhorrent, because they were. Again the most awful traumas of slavery had to come when it overlapped with things like sex and children and that means women are more completely co-opted into the slavery dynamic.

Modern feminism has to be thought of as an attempt to separate ourselves from that past.

"Co-opted" isn't the right word there - I mean that women were forced to be intimately involved with their slavemasters and this kind of relationship became normalized. Horrible.

Dlaw wrote: ↑January 11th, 2018, 9:11 pm

Greta wrote: ↑January 11th, 2018, 8:01 pm Oppression started with plain old nature - the patriarchal society inherited from our evolutionary forebears. It surely didn't finish with that as chiefs and a few tribal strongmen would form oppressive cliques (again, not miles from the dynamics in chimp colonies) which dominated not just females, but other males, who would often be denied mating rights unless they fought and won against a dominant.

I think you'll find that slavery systems are different. Formalized slavery is a very different kettle of fish from animal behavior and is not really part of the small-group neolithic society we usually think of - but if it does come in my understanding is that kidnapped "brides" are the beginning of slaveholding cultures.

Slavery is amongst the more extreme forms of oppression but far from the only one. Oppression and coercion go back to animal groups. That human beings can make an art from out of things that other species do in a less extreme manner is well known - be it courting rituals, torture, dining, oppression or play. Animals do it and humans take it to the next level.

Dlaw wrote: ↑January 11th, 2018, 9:11 pm

Fast forward and you have feudal societies and, later, early democracies where only dominant males were permitted a vote. It appears that the "natural order" has returned and there was no need to deprive women of the vote. While everyone has a vote, now corporations dominate political agendas, most with boardrooms largely populated by - you guessed it - cliques of dominant males.

Yes but again, the first "democracies" were slaveholding cultures. We would find the norms of Greece and Rome to be totally abhorrent, because they were. Again the most awful traumas of slavery had to come when it overlapped with things like sex and children and that means women are more completely co-opted into the slavery dynamic.

Modern feminism has to be thought of as an attempt to separate ourselves from that past.

Yes, we find the norms of all prior cultures to be brutish and dodgy as hell; so much progress is taken for granted, or judged in terms of recent trends rather than on the medium and long term.

Agreed that feminism is one of the tools of progress, along with other pushes for equality based on logic and merit rather than superficial traditional fetishes.

So the message above is that if men "oppress" men then it is nature, but when men oppress women it is oppression?

If you look up the word "Oppression" you'll find that it is the basic definition of what we now call "tyrannical rule".

All forms of law and governing are necessarily likened to "oppression." When people don't like some law or governing body they feel "oppressed." There is a considerable difference between "feeling" something and having something enacted upon you.

I would call feminism a tool for progress in countries where women cannot vote. I generally think feminism, in the western world, has run its course because there is no "oppression" of women in the west anymore - unless we're talking about reducing the idea of "oppression" to mean that which doesn't allow complete and utter freedom without suffering the consequences of said freedom.

Over all it is difficult to pinpoint meaningful correlations between societal changes and the rise of women's rights. There were already so many things in play that had gained considerable momentum before women's right become an issue. The indudtrial revolution and general technological advances had nothing to do with the rise of women's rights directly. It could be argued that the freedoms given to some people by way of the industrial revolution and production of more writing led to those less heard to become more heard in society at large.

The idea of "feminism" could also be argued to be a "patriarchal" idea. FOr if men were the dominant force in society then they could quash any "uprising" with brute force. This didn't happen because many men were happy to see the changes in the social dynamic and allowed, and encouraged, women to pursue more idverse roles in society at large beyond being seen as wife and mother (which are still important today, although the "wife" idea has been bludgeoned a fair bit; this is likely to do with kickback against religious institutions than an actual feminism "achievement.") Which opens up another immense change in modern society, religion. So when we look at religious ideological changes and their role in western society, industry and production leading to commercialism and new economics, and huge leaps forward in scientific progress and technological know how; I find it diffifult to untangle the effect of feminism among all of this - I would simply lump it in with the rise of secular democratic society that allowed many tyrannical regimes to either adapt or die.

I think Steve Pinker put it best. All radical movements run there course and once they've achieved their goals some people hang on to them and push them beyond their original intention. At the moment I view the most publicized side of feminism to be little more than fear mongering and purposely being on the attack rather than simply guarding its achievements.

Let men be men and let women be women. If you honestly think there is no difference between the two you're likely delusional and possibly a serious danger to your self and others.

Correlations? Such hackneyed historical research is merely the ideological mindset of someone like Foucault. Dig into the past and extract whatever meaning you wish to suit your needs. I don't buy it as a explicit truth of the world. Interpreting facts in different ways doesn't change the actual facts.

Listen to this nonsense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8h-ZzHzTFM

No doubt this makes the news channels happy.

Burning ghost wrote: ↑January 11th, 2018, 11:32 pmSo the message above is that if men "oppress" men then it is nature, but when men oppress women it is oppression?

No, it clear that oppression as part of natural social dynamics crosses gender boundaries. Non-dominant males are frequent targets too.

Read again, BG.

I was not aiming that I you Greta, it was a comment on what Dlaw is saying (should've been more direct.) I was just stating one of the views espoused by some people who hold to feminism.

A very civil and interesting debate between a couple of crackpots using boring, uninspired arguments they stumbled across after acquiring an unreasonable position, in need of some justification to be used while preaching to others. Did we come to a consensus yet? Are we eradicating the nature of men or revoking the rights of women and all xenos?

I keep waiting for one of these exceptionally passionate people to show that, their strong views and interest in the subject have yielded interesting and compelling evidence or arguments that has clearly been well researched and considered. If any of you very passionate speakers determined that such a passionate view demands passionate research and opinions formulated with care and hard work then this thread might have been worth reading, sadly it's just recycled arguments coming from people who only know extremes.

I believe the 20th century was a cautionary tale against extremes but clearly not for others, some just see Nazism and think "extreme right didn't work out, let's try extreme left" and others see this new extreme left and think "actually extreme right was better than this, let's try another go at that". When are people going to get real?

Judaka -

What are talking about? Extremism on both the left and right was predominant throughout WWII. More people died at the hands of the left extremists, but that is mostly ignored (as far as standard education anyway.)

We're just in a state of more than average social flux due to the spread of equality. It may be stormy and maybe we'll come out wiser and more stable, or we'll take a few steps backward.

As long as people can speak their minds and not get too carried away, which is what is hopefully happening in this discussion, then maybe we'll all walk away a little wiser and readier when this kind of topic comes up again.

If you have some conclusive evidence and solution to all the problems of humanity then please share with us I don't really think we're in a horrible place right now over all. Caution is always needed and taking selective data can support almost any claim. I generally see all this as part of humanity coming to terms with the information explosion. I could present several different opposing arguments as to why feminism has been good or bad for the stability of the planet, so what?

Just in case you're unsure about what my position is, it is that I often fear (both myself and others) that we're not as brave as we need to be sometimes. Nurture your own patch and if you are doing a good job other people will generally let you know or otherwise they'll run for the hills - and even here once people listen to you more caution is needed on your own part, so make sure you've got yourself set just about as straight as you can get yourself before venturing forth into world beyond your own personal domain.

I've spent some time listening to Jordan Peterson and really like what has turned into a catch phrase of his "Tidy your room!" Basically set your own **** straight and then work from there. Already being very attuned to Jungian psychoanalysis he has been doubly helpful to me.

If you want more substance from someone just ask. I'm often surprised how willing people are to say what they think and to lay things out raw once you've given them the consideration of your time and listen to them - I am not the best listener though and usually quite blunt (sometimes intentionally and sometimes not.) I do what I feel is best and say what I think is useful, what more can I do? For the more detailed process I doubt anyone here would be interested in what I have to say, but that is my problem and one I hope to address over the next few years and write something more manageable (or throw in the hat and go to university to study X,Y or Z.)

I am sure Sausage Dog has some reason for doing this, even if it is unknown to himself at this time.

A very civil and interesting debate between a couple of crackpots using boring, uninspired arguments they stumbled across after acquiring an unreasonable position, in need of some justification to be used while preaching to others

I don't know who the two crackpots are, or how their conversation can simultaneously be interesting and boring.

Burning ghost wrote: ↑January 11th, 2018, 11:32 pm So the message above is that if men "oppress" men then it is nature, but when men oppress women it is oppression?

If you look up the word "Oppression" you'll find that it is the basic definition of what we now call "tyrannical rule".

EASY THERE, I never excused men oppressing men. Clearly I condemned all slaveholding as absolutely barbaric.

My point is that when slaveholders USE the natural attachment between women and their children as a means of control, it does two things:

1) Increases the PSYCHOLOGICAL cruelty (it may actually decrease the physical cruelty).

2) Normalizes violence and then "folds in" this violence to society.

All forms of law and governing are necessarily likened to "oppression." When people don't like some law or governing body they feel "oppressed." There is a considerable difference between "feeling" something and having something enacted upon you.

Is this anything other than a straw man argument?

That's all I can see in it, to be honest.

I would call feminism a tool for progress in countries where women cannot vote. I generally think feminism, in the western world, has run its course because there is no "oppression" of women in the west anymore - unless we're talking about reducing the idea of "oppression" to mean that which doesn't allow complete and utter freedom without suffering the consequences of said freedom.

So the straw man was to back up this weak junk?

Billions of Muslim women are taught every day that they are half as valuable as a man.

Oppression.

Billions of Catholic women are taught every day that only men can talk to God.

Oppression.

Billions of women in all the Abrahamic faiths are taught, every day, that their bodies are shameful, dirty, that they are responsible for all sexual misconduct that is committed 99% of the time by men.

And then there's the fact that men are responsible for almost all criminal behavior apart from prostitution and of course prostitution is rife with oppression.

Western democracy has stopped none of these oppressive practices by men on women.

Over all it is difficult to pinpoint meaningful correlations between societal changes and the rise of women's rights.

Sure, if you're not looking.

There were already so many things in play that had gained considerable momentum before women's right become an issue. The indudtrial revolution and general technological advances had nothing to do with the rise of women's rights directly. It could be argued that the freedoms given to some people by way of the industrial revolution and production of more writing led to those less heard to become more heard in society at large.

The idea of "feminism" could also be argued to be a "patriarchal" idea. FOr if men were the dominant force in society then they could quash any "uprising" with brute force. This didn't happen because many men were happy to see the changes in the social dynamic and allowed, and encouraged, women to pursue more idverse roles in society at large beyond being seen as wife and mother (which are still important today, although the "wife" idea has been bludgeoned a fair bit; this is likely to do with kickback against religious institutions than an actual feminism "achievement.") Which opens up another immense change in modern society, religion. So when we look at religious ideological changes and their role in western society, industry and production leading to commercialism and new economics, and huge leaps forward in scientific progress and technological know how; I find it diffifult to untangle the effect of feminism among all of this - I would simply lump it in with the rise of secular democratic society that allowed many tyrannical regimes to either adapt or die.

There's a large amount of tyranny in the world. If men and women were equal, we would expect tyranny to at least SOMETIMES be administered by women. We find no examples, therefore your premise is wrong.

I think Steve Pinker put it best. All radical movements run there course and once they've achieved their goals some people hang on to them and push them beyond their original intention. At the moment I view the most publicized side of feminism to be little more than fear mongering and purposely being on the attack rather than simply guarding its achievements.

You need to re-read Pinker, and this time read to the end.

Let men be men and let women be women. If you honestly think there is no difference between the two you're likely delusional and possibly a serious danger to your self and others.

So you left the worst straw man for last.

It's on fire, so you may want to get another.

Correlations? Such hackneyed historical research is merely the ideological mindset of someone like Foucault. Dig into the past and extract whatever meaning you wish to suit your needs. I don't buy it as a explicit truth of the world. Interpreting facts in different ways doesn't change the actual facts.

To what "facts" do you refer. I see none here.

As a man, I'm telling you that you have to face the fact you're a misogynist. A lot of men are. It's very unfortunate.

Judaka wrote: ↑January 12th, 2018, 9:12 am A very civil and interesting debate between a couple of crackpots using boring, uninspired arguments they stumbled across after acquiring an unreasonable position, in need of some justification to be used while preaching to others. Did we come to a consensus yet? Are we eradicating the nature of men or revoking the rights of women and all xenos?

I keep waiting for one of these exceptionally passionate people to show that, their strong views and interest in the subject have yielded interesting and compelling evidence or arguments that has clearly been well researched and considered. If any of you very passionate speakers determined that such a passionate view demands passionate research and opinions formulated with care and hard work then this thread might have been worth reading, sadly it's just recycled arguments coming from people who only know extremes.

I believe the 20th century was a cautionary tale against extremes but clearly not for others, some just see Nazism and think "extreme right didn't work out, let's try extreme left" and others see this new extreme left and think "actually extreme right was better than this, let's try another go at that". When are people going to get real?

I'm not sure I take your point here.

I just introduced Veblen's idea into a discussion that I hadn't been part of because I think it opens up the discussion. I don't know what "extreme" you're associating with me, but if you are, it's just equivocation based on assuming more about my argument than I argued.

Sorry if the Internet bores you. I can usually find something I'm interested in.