Les

[Adam]

There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately

So, go on, Les

I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.

Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.

Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right

Please come up with a better argument

Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 words. Cheers.

[Bastet]

There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately

So, go on, Les

I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.

Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.

Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right

Please come up with a better argument

Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 pages. Cheers.

Fixed.

[Al Swearegen]

Adam 

You are silly Adam. Is this how you think it plays out. You open a thread and try to give me terms about what and how to answer?

Oh yes I will be happy to take on this call out.

[Al Swearegen]

There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately

So, go on, Les

I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.

Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.

Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right

Please come up with a better argument

Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 words. Cheers.

Of course you do not "see" it because you don't "see it". Oh fuck, you are going to be a hard ask to break through your stupidity and when I do I don't think I will have much to work with. But fuck it, kids are both asleep and will write this first piece and then watch some gratuitous violence. You know, something that gets your testosterone pumped....oh right, sorry.

This requires a bit of critical thinking on your part. Cavemen had good senses of smells and relied on smell and hearing possibly a lot more than we did. Now, Cavemen did not have showers (I know, this is getting harder and harder for someone, so removed from such things, to contemplate). So if some horny 14 year old hairy, smelly, probably parasite infested, rotten toothed (and so on) male Caveman was keen on some equally smelly and repulsive female, why did they NOT say oh fuck this, I can barely tolerate my own stench, I don't want to bump uglies with that horrible thing.

See you may say now "Oh I would not. Fuck that, that gross fucking thing would not come anywhere near me and visa versa." You are too far removed, the fact that most did, though they were ignorant and non-educated, they were not stupid. So the belonging to a social setting requires a different way of thinking things to what you do now.

But see it does not stop there. Men and women have primal urges to have sex. Now whilst the act of sex may have been pleasurable, the birth thing wasn't and killed many. Infant mortality was high. Life expectancy for mothers was not great and life expectancy general was probably around I dunno, 25? On average? There is good evidence that the men after having sex with these hideous women things did NOT dump them and actually looked after their women.

Men stayed and looked after their family. Men would go out on hunting expeditions over dangerous territories, exposing themselves to opposing tribes, predators, injury and often death. Whilst the women stayed home.

Now.....the women stayed home. Safe. Secure. Warm. With good company.

Who the fuck would think that was a good idea? The man or the woman?
In context, he a number of years ago had sex with the horrible thing. She had two kids. He now has to risk his life to get food for him AND her and the kids. She stays home. Why does she not get her own food? Why doesn't she and the other fit women go hunting too?

No there is something there greater than "Males have penises so they are sexist". There was a social obligation on the man to look after and protect his wife and the kids. A social and a moral obligation. The women, what was their social obligation to him? What were her duties as she waved him off for perhaps the last time when he when out to hunt?

I don't know. I was not there. I would imagine that it may have been something like. You get sex and more say than me and I stay warm and safe.
I think that was the trade-off.

That is not sexist. Were there sexists Cavemen? Undoubtedly. Both genders no doubt but this division of duty and the social constructs around it not inherently sexist. Different is not sexist neither is treating people of different genders sexist. In the same way as the lack of urinals in the ladies toilets is both a reflection of difference of genders and treating one gender differently than the other, without being sexist.

It was not sexist to send the man off to risk life and limb and it was not sexist to trade that off against more say in the tribe.
I would say it was necessary for that day and time in exactly the same way as it ISN'T now. Just does not mean it was sexist then

So why is all of this important? Why does it have any bearing on the the subject? Well it points to probable starting points. I will follow through on this path to our great grand parents time to here and introduce the reason why society has change since introduction of welfare and lower mother/child death in childbirth and such.

It will no doubt go completely over your head Adam. In fact the only reason I have decided to start with such a long post is because you demanded 100 words or less.......did you honestly think that was going to happen? No I fully expect a TLDR and you already stating you refuse to entertain a callout of your own making because I will not pay by your rules.



How is that turtle of yours lately. Haven't heard anything of it. Still alive and well? How long do those things live if not killed off maliciously and painfully by predators? Longer than that dog and cat of yours? Just curious

[Al Swearegen]

Now from the rather mutually agreed on and mutually beneficial social contracts and constructs we evolved. This was just the framework.

Men and women slowly evolved. Men for their part showed the physical changes bought about by their efforts in being the protectors, by having more muscle mass and denser bones and by becoming on average taller and stronger than their female counterparts.

But throughout the preceding history things remained fairly stunted in meaningful change from what is now thought of (charitably perhaps) as traditional roles in the marriage.

The duties to the woman were still there. If they had evolved to a point they did not have to hunt for food or risk their life in a long expedition, there was always another war, or a duel over a lady's honour or the like. He also had to provide for his family.

The duties to the man? Well yes there was the marriage vows and the social agreement to stay at home whilst the husband provided.

They looked after each other, in different ways.

The marriage vow? The wife honouring the husband's efforts in providing and looking after her for life and looking after her children? I think so.
I think it was a nice way of saying "OK you poor bastard. If you bust your arse defending us, protecting and providing for me and the kids, I will (like the Cavewomen did) trade this off for obeying you. Allow you to call the shots and take the responsibility for the public affairs and stresses."

I think it was probably not only workable but necessary.

Why?

Because whilst society had advanced in leaps and bounds, infant mortality and mothers dying early from childbirth had not come ahead in leaps and bounds.

Slowly this too changed. Women finally were at a stage that there was not a better than great chance they would die early and their kids mostly would. They got to a stage historically comparatively recently where women could hope for longer lives and less of their lives trying for another and another child in hope that enough would survive to give them grandchildren.

Healthier, less prone to death in childbirth and with more time to dedicate to other things other than raising families, women have gone into the areas that were male dominated. Male tasks of which men were duty bound to perform.

We now live in a different time. The social constructs which recognised the need for men and women at that time to do different roles and oblige themselves in different ways was neither bad nor sexist. It was just a necessary future in the society.

It is not now. The obligations bit in the marriage. It is a relic of a time gone by. Does it matter? Probably not. It simply is not relevant.I do not think it is sexist, just outdated. Like being shown a tool holder for a tool no longer used or produced and asked if its useful. It was or may have been but is not now.

The possession thing....yeah. I think that really t is expressing possession of the wife in terms of duty. The man was bound to the wife and her children by duty. He was obliged to keep them safe and honoured and provided for. He was theirs in this respect. They were his. They obeyed and he took care of their needs. I think "possession" was a way of describing the having something in your possession. Another man could not attempt to steal another man's wife or attack the children. It would be seen as a righteous retaliation. A right that these components of the family were afforded a right to be looked after and provided for by the husband. By calling the wife and children possessions, they were afforded recognition to the man's duties to protect them.

Now people could make the argument that this kind of treatment would be sexist now. OK sure, whatever, but that is not the argument.

.People could say that the way in society and law sought to afford this right of protection could have been done a different way, maybe it could have or maybe it could not have

A better point would be....OK so what IF the man "supposed" to be looking after his family, doesn't? Well this is where it all goes South really quick. The system was not really designed based on the fact that women would not trade off sex and more power for safety and being provided for and not designed for the man not giving women support and protection. Same applies if the women did not do their obligation. Similar results.

A lot of the bad aspects of such a system are easily evidenced. It does not make men then sexist or women sexist. People are people and always will be. Mostly good. Mostly loving their families and mostly seeing to look after each other and live life. Always going to be a percentage of arseholes in any community

[Adam]

WTF

I have to read all that?  Jesus Christ. Guess I kinda asked for this though, so I'll try and book some time off in my diary so I have plenty of time to read your latest rambling bollocks.

(I'll read it when I've had my dinner)

[Adam]

You know, something that gets your testosterone pumped....oh right, sorry.

Haha, how pathetic. You realise the testosterone levels of trans guys are the same as the average non-trans guy, right? Not sure what you're trying to do there - and, trust me, you're probably the last person to get my testosterone pumping

showers (I know, this is getting harder and harder for someone, so removed from such things, to contemplate).

Lol, so the best you can do is to start with the trans stuff and then to go on to my OCD?

Haha! My OCD was sorted in 2011 and I'm fine now. Sure, I have a shower every day like any normal person - don't you?

Please... cut the lame trans/ocd digs and actually get down to making an argument, if you're capable of that.

[some weird attempt at explaining the history of "cavemen"]

What was that? "Cavemen"? Please. I don't need you to educate me on the evolution of humanity or early civilisation. I go to books for that kind of thing - not some middle aged bloke on the internet with a stick up his arse and a severe lack of intellect.

No there is something there greater than "Males have penises so they are sexist".

Who actually says that here? Sexism can go both ways, yes. And I am strongly against sexism in any and all forms (whether directed at men or women).

Were there sexists Cavemen? Undoubtedly.

Are you high?

Where has this Flintstones stuff come from?

The callout was started after discussions about sexism in present-day Iraq and sexism in marriage prior to changes in the law.

  Different is not sexist neither is treating people of different genders sexist.

I don't think that sentence means what you think it means. In fact, I don't think it means anything.
Did you mean to say, "neither is treating people of different genders differently is not sexist"?

I will follow through on this path to our great grand parents time to here and introduce the reason why society has change since introduction of welfare and lower mother/child death in childbirth and such.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Les, you make it sound like you're writing for a peer-reviewed evolutionary biology / anthropology journal.

Get to the fucking point.

Oh and, along with the trans stuff and the OCD stuff, that "turtle" (did you mean my tortoise?) stuff is really so 2010, Les

[Adam]

as traditional roles in the marriage.

Finally!

The possession thing....yeah. I think that really t is expressing possession of the wife in terms of duty. The man was bound to the wife and her children by duty. He was obliged to keep them safe and honoured and provided for. He was theirs in this respect. They were his.

No. The wife belonged to the husband. Not vice versa.

some more poorly-written amateur rubbish

That's disappointing. I thought when you mentioned "traditional marriage" you were finally getting on to the actually point of the callout. Clearly not.

I don't need you to explain to me WHY marriage began as it did. I'm asking you to explain to me why it's not sexist for women to be owned by men. Either before the mid twentieth century in most Western countries, or today in places like Iraq.

You haven't even touched upon that.

If you'll look at my initial post, I was asking you to justify your view that Iraqi women (as well as women in other countries) being treated as inferior to men is NOT sexist.

You say that it's perfectly ok because it's to protect the women, but is that for their own good, or simply for the good of their husbands/fathers/brothers? It's not to protect the women for their own sake that they are kept inside and under complete control. It's to protect them as a commodity. It's their fathers and husbands protecting THEIR posession (their daughters, wives, sisters).

I would protect my wife or daughter, yes. But I would protect her as an individual person with her own rights and her own life. I would not protect her in the way that I would "protect" my slave (my property). Yet that is what's happening in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia.

You make out it's all good for the women as they're being kept safe etc. No. It's not being done to keep them from harm for their sake. It's being done in the same way that you lock the doors of your car when you leave it. The way you don't leave your expensive phone on the bar when you go to take a piss.

They're being "protected" as a POSSESSION. As property. Not as people. And despite my efforts to drum it into you here, you don't seem to grasp that.

Now, can we finally leave off the lame 2010 insults and the amateur rambles on "cavemen" and get to the actual point of the callout.

How is it not sexist to view women as property?

You haven't even ONCE addressed women in present-day [Iraq]. Which is strange, given that this is where the whole thing stated from

[Al Swearegen]

Leave out lame insults?

Didn't this whole callout start shortly after you posted this?

No wonder your wife divorced you

I mean, you did post this right? Nothing comes ot of a vacuum. Ill advised? Perhaps, but then if you think the little jibes ae throwing your way are unwarranted and unnecessary, I think no less than taking such potshots at me, but you can bet I will respond in kind about 100%.

Unlike you I don't go making a deal about it. I see it and I say "Oh right, back to this. Disappointing but ok"

So you want to stop? OK. Probably better to not start. My kids are also out of bounds in case you are wondering.

[Adam]

How are your kids the same as your divorce?

I'm not gonna insult anyone's kids. A divorce is pretty different though.

Personally, I think someone's gender and previous mental illness are different too actually, much as I'd find a racist or homophobic insult kinda different to attacking someone's failed relationships.

I couldn't care less what you post about my being trans elsewhere though, but I'd at least have expected you to actually get down toa proper argument in the CALLOUT though.

btw, I wasn't the first person to bring up your divorce once you started this weird sexism thing. At least it's technically related to the issue

But yes, you seem to be misunderstanding me here - I don't particularly care about your lame trans/ocd insults themselves. But I'd have thought that, if you actually had anything to back up your argument, you'd have got down to that in the callout. Not pointless little insults.

[Adam]

Also, if you were "responding in kind", a better one would have been to insult my past BEHAVIOUR etc.

Not who/what I am.

Person A: "you're being pretty sexist here. no wonder your marriage didn't last"
Person B: "yeah well you're a nigger lol!"

Not really the same

But then this is a separate issue, perhaps for a separate thread

[Al Swearegen]

Also, if you were "responding in kind", a better one would have been to insult my past BEHAVIOUR etc.

Not who/what I am.

Person A: "you're being pretty sexist here. no wonder your marriage didn't last"
Person B: "yeah well you're a nigger lol!"

Not really the same

But then this is a separate issue, perhaps for a separate thread

Nope that is just your idea on things. I see things very differently. I think that if you go there you are basically going back to 2010 when you and bit thought they would get a few lowblows in.
Basically non-substantiated talking shit about someone because you think you can. Now you can say if you like, "Well I did say that but it was different to you saying shit about me because "I" do not think it as of as much value and my doing this ought not mean that you should respond in kind and not in the callout if you do" But you know adam, it sounds like a more accommodating position for you tan me. I say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Call me sexist if you like.

[Al Swearegen]

Now I will respond further to the claims I have made and that you have responded to a bit later but just not now. 6 more hours if you can bear hanging out that long. I was just checking in. I will be taking kids out to laser tag or bowling. I guess that answers one of your queries, doesn't it?

No idea why Adam is posting in the Peanut GAllery. I have only just started. Settling in. I think it may be wishful thinking on his part.

[Adam]

Nope that is just your idea on things. I see things very differently. I think that if you go there you are basically going back to 2010 when you and bit thought they would get a few lowblows in.
Basically non-substantiated talking shit about someone because you think you can. Now you can say if you like, "Well I did say that but it was different to you saying shit about me because "I" do not think it as of as much value and my doing this ought not mean that you should respond in kind and not in the callout if you do" But you know adam, it sounds like a more accommodating position for you tan me. I say what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Call me sexist if you like.

Wrong. That's not what I said. It's not about value. You attacking me on something I've done in the past, regardless of how much that might mean to me, would be the same as me taking the piss out of your divorce.

You attacking me for being trans is different, in the same way as it would be different to attack someone for being black, being female, being disabled or being gay.

For the record, I'm not saying you shouldn't take the piss out of me being trans. Feel free - it doesn't make a difference to me. It is definitely not the same as taking the piss out of something someone's done though, however much that might bother them.

The OCD insults... hmm... perhaps you are right about them being similar. Although I'm still not so sure about that.

But I still say it would have been easier for you to justify it that way if your insult had been about something I'd done in my past etc, rather than my being trans.

If you want to continue this , I think it'd be better in a different thread though. Would much rather this callout actually be about the topic it was started for.

[Al Swearegen]

It will be too Adam. I have only time to look in whilst my boy is dragging his feet getting ready to go out. I will respond to the callout but not in 100 word sound bytes.

As to me not replying in ways you consider similar or relevant, No Adam, I know this comes as a shock and you think it perfectly reasonable for you to think I need to respond in ways that insult about things that are classified as similar to what...
No. Insult me over things I think are not "on the table for discussions" and I will start lowballing too. I don't really care if you think it relevant or similar or worthy. Do not give a shit. The fact you made a song and dance and wanted to callout over is great.

Going down this path lead to a situation that your partner in crime ended up wishing heart attack on me and accusing me of pedophilia. Something she could not walk away from and something you found a hard to slinking away from whilst saying "OK I WAS encouraging her and supporting hrer and acting like a dick, but I can't support this and please don't associate her actions with mine" and then left her holding the baby.

Yes very 2010, better not start with that kind of shi or play innocent when you do. It comes off as dishonest and slimy.

.....and he is ready and I've gotta go.

Will post more tonight about 9 my time when kids in bed.